
Q3S& ^T K I ^ fiX 



CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 



OF 



JAMES WICKERSHAM 



V. 



CHARLES A. SULZER 



FROM THE 



TERRITORY OF ALASKA 



"^2) 



# 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1917 



CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 



OF 



JAMES WICKERSHAM 

V. 

CHARLES A. SULZER 

FROM THE 

TERRITORY OF ALASKA 



T:) 






WASHINGTON 

60VERXMEXT PRINTING OFFICE 

1917 






D. of D. 
NOV 15 191/ 



r\ 



CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 



JAMES WICKERSHAM V. CHARLES A. SULZER, 

FEOM THE 

TERKITOKY OF ALASKA. 



NOTICE OF CONTEST. 

To Hon. Charles A, Sulzek: 

Sir : Please take notice that it is my intention to and I sliall contest your 
election and claim to the office of Delegate from Alaska in the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States for the Sixty-fifth Congress from the Territory 
of Alaska, by virtue of the election held in said Territory on the 7th day of 
November, A. D. 1916. 

And also take notice that annexed hereto is a petition addressed to the said 
House of Representatives specifying particularly the grounds upon which I 
rely in making said contest. 

•Dated Washington, D. C, this 10th day of April, 1917. 

James Wickeesham, 

Contestant. 

PETITION OF CONTESTANT. 

To the House of Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first 

session. 

Comes now James Wickersham, contestant, and particularly specifies the fol- 
lowing grounds upon which he relies in the contest herein against Charles A. 
Sulzer, contestee : 



That at all the times mentioned in this petition and ever since the passage 
and approval of the act of Congress entitled "An act providing for the election 
of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from the Territory of Alaska," 
approved May 7, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 169), it was and is the law of the United 
States that the people of the Territory of Alaska shall be represented by a Dele- 
gate in the House of Representatives of the United States, chosen by the people 
thereof in the manner and at the time prescribed by the laws of the United 
States, and who shall be known as the Delegate from Alaska. 

n. 

That at the general election held pursuant to the statutes of the United 
States in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, this con- 
testant was a duly nominated candidate for the said office of Delegate from 
Alaska ; that upon the date of said election this contestant was and for more 
than seven years prior thereto had been and he now is a native-born citizen of 
the United States, and was then and is now an inhabitant in and a qualified 



4 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

voter of the District of Alaska, and was not less than 25 years of age, and was 
then of the age of 59 years, and was a resident in the town of Fairbanks, in said 
Territory of Alaska. 

III. 

That at the said general election so held in said Territory on said 7th day 
of November, 1916, there were three candidates for the said office of Delegate 
from Alaska- — (1) your petitioner, James Wickersham, contestant; (2) Charles. 
A. Sulzer, contestee; and (3) Lena Morrow Lewis. 

IV. 

That at the said election so held in said Territory of Alaska on said 7th day 
of November, 1916, this petitioner, James Wickersham, contestant, received 
the greatest number of votes cast for any person or candidate for the office 
of Delegate from Alaska, and thereby was and now is the duly qualified and' 
elected Delegate to Congress from said Territory of Alaska, and was thereupon 
and now is entitled under the law to a seat as Delegate from Alaska in the 
House of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, in the Sixty- 
fifth Congress, now in session. 



That at the said election so held in said Territory of Alaska on said 7th day 
of November, 1916, on the face of the returns of said election as canvassed by 
the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska authorized and provided by 
tile twelfth section of the aforementioned act of Congress so approved May 7, 
]906 (34 Stat. L., 178), the following vote was cast for petitioner, James Wick- 
ersham, contestant, and for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and for said Lena 
Morrow Lewis, respectively, to wit : For James Wickersham, contestant, 6,490 
votes ; for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, 6,459 votes ; for Lena Morrow Lewis, 
1,346 votes. 

VI. 

The said canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, as provided in sec- 
tion 12 of said act of Congress approved May 7, 1906, consisted of Hon. J. F. A. 
Strong, governor of Alaska ; Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general of 
Alaska ; and Hon. John F. Pugh, the collector of customs for Alaska ; and said 
canvassing board met and organized as said canvassing board in the city of 
Juneau, Alaska, at the public office of the governor in the month of February, 
1917, and from day to day met in session as said canvassing board and publicly 
canvassed and compiled in writing the vote specified in the certificates of elec- 
tion returned to the governor of Alaska from all the several election precincts 
in said Territory, in accordance with the several provisions of the laws of the 
United States ; and the said canvassing board, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
did complete its canvass and compilation of all the returns so received from 
all the several precincts as aforesaid of the said general election so held in the 
Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that the official 
tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, and 
that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several candi- 
dates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ; 
Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes; and James Wickersham, this contestant, 6,490 
votes. 

VII. 

That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and the 
totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board said board voted to issue 
certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who had 
received the greatest number of votes in the said general election aforesaid, 
as shown by the official tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance of such 
action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alternative 
writ of mandamus hereinafter mentioned upon the members thereof, a certifi- 
cate of election was prepared by said board for issuance to James Wicker- 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 5 

■sham, this contestant, as Delegate to Congress from Alaska for the term begin- 
ning ]\Iarch 5. 1917, but that before said certificates had been signed and 
issued by the board the members thereof were served with the alternative Avrit 
of mandamus hereinafter mentioned, and the said board was thereby prevented 
from signing and issuing, said certificate of election to this contestant pending 
the further order of the court therein. 

VIII. 

That on said March 1, 1917, the said canvassing board in due and regular 
session, in the public office of the governor of Alaska, after the completion of its 
canvass and compilation of all the said returns from all the precincts in the 
Territory of Alaska, did publicly and officially declare that this contestant, 
James Wickersham. had received the greatest number of votes for the office of 
Delegate from Alaska to the Sixty-fifth Congress, at said election so held in 
said Territory on said November 7, 1916, and did publicly and officially declare 
this contestant. James Wickersham, to be duly and legally elected Delegate from 
Alaska to the Sixty-fifth Congress, and duly, publicly, and officially declared the 
purpose and intention of the said canvassing board to issue and deliver to this 
contestant, James Wickershnm, in writing, under their hands and seals, a cer- 
tificate of his said election as Delegate from Alaska, as aforesaid, at the con- 
vening of the board on March 2, 1917. 

IX. 

That on the said March 2. 1917, and before the said canvassing board did 
sign and deliver the said certificate of election to this contestant, the said 
Charles A. Sulzer, contestee herein, began a suit in equity in the district court 
for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau, Alaska, which said suit 
was entitled-" The Territory of Alaska on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer. and 
Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 
Pugh, defendants." and numbered 1593-A in said court, and did on that day file 
Ms verified petition in said court praying for the issuance of a writ of man- 
damus and a temporary rule against the aforesaid members of said canvassing 
board and the said board to restrain them and it from issuing the said cer- 
tificate of election to James Wickersham, this contestant, and to compel them 
and it to issue the said certificate of election to the contestee, Charles A. Sulzer. 

X. ' 

The ground stated in said petition as the basis for the relief demanded was 
that the election returns from the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, 
Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Vault, in said Territory, were invalid and 
void, for the faikare of the election officers in said precincts to include and 
return with said retui'ns a certificate certifying the reasons why the one form 
of the official liallots was not received in said polling places and used at said 
election and why other ballots, also official and authorized by law, were used in 
place thereof ; that said petitioner, Sulzer, among other things in said petition 
alleged that from the said returns of said election it appears that of the total 
vote cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress the relator 
and plaintiff. Charles A. Sulzer, received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham 
received 6,414 votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes ; and 
further alleged that thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board 
to issue a certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to 
the relator and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received 
the highest number of votes, as shown by said returns : and further alleged that 
the said canvassing board has refused, and is still refusing, to issue said cer- 
tificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, but. on the contrary, has threat- 
ened and announced their intention to disregard the legal election returns above 
referred to in determining to whom said certificate shall issue and threaten and 
intend to count and canvass together with the returns aforesaid certain false, 
spiirious, and illegal A'otes, which returns and votes, if counted together with 
the legal returns of votes, will change the result of the said election as here- 
inafter set forth ; and further alleged that the false, spurious, and illegal votes 



6 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

and returns threatened to be counted consists of the false, spurious, and illegal 
votes from the following precincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit : 

Chogguing : Votes. 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

TJtica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

and further alleged that in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, 
Nushagak, and Bonnifield the said vote was and is illegal, false, and spurious 
in this : That the votes cast and threatened to be counted by the said can- 
vassing board, were not cast in accordance with law, in that the voters casting 
said ballots failed to use the form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of 
Alaska, and failed to use the official ballots prepared for said election according 
to the laws of Alaska, but, on the contrary, in casting said votes,- used a form 
of ballot, either prepared by the voters themselves, or by some person other 
than the person or persons authorized by law to prepare and provide said bal- 
lots ; and further alleged that the laws of Alaska provide as follows : " That in 
any precinct where the election has been legally called, and no official ballots 
have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print their ballots, 
but the judges of election shall, in this event, certify to the facts which pre- 
vented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany and be 
made a part of the election returns " ; and further alleged that in each of the 
precincts above referred to where no official ballots were used, no, certificate 
explaining the facts which prevented the use of the official ballot accompanied 
the returns ; and further alleged that in none of the precincts above enumerated 
where the official ballot was not used as aforesaid, were the election returns 
transmitted to the canvassing board accompanied by a certificate of the judges 
of election, or of any other person or persons whatsoever, certifying to the 
facts, if any there were, which prevented the use of the official ballots, if the 
use of such ballots was in any manner prevented, but, on the contrary, the bal- 
lots cast, if any were cast, in each of the precincts above enumerated, were 
returned to the election board without any certificate setting forth any facts 
which in any wise prevented the use of the official ballot ; and further alleged 
that the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, and 
illegal, in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law, and in that 
no certificate of the result of the election in said precinct, specifying the num- 
ber of votes cast for each candidate, accompanied or was included in said re- 
turns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska ; and fur- 
ther alleged that if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the pre- 
cinct aforesaid are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, to- 
gether with the legal votes cast at said election, the total vote counted for 
James Wickersham will be 6,490 and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer 
will be 6,459 ; and further alleged that the said canvassing board do now 
threaten and intend, and will, unless restrained by an order of this honorable 
court, so count and include said false, spurious, and illegal votes in compiling 
the totals from said election returns for the Territory of Alaska, and do now 
threaten, and intend, and will, unless restrained by this honorable court, issue a 
certificate of election to the said James Wickersham, based upon said false 
compilation of votes, notwithstanding that your relator and plaintifC herein 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 7 

received the highest number of votes cast at said election, and is entitled to 
said certificate of election ; and further alleged that the plaintiff and relator 
has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, 
and will be deprived of a certificate of election entitling him to the oflice of 
Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska, unless this court issue this 
return of mandate, compelling the said canvassing board to reject and not 
count the returns from each and all of tlie foregoing precincts, hereinbefore 
enumerated, and compelling the said canvassing board to issue to the relator 
and plaintiff herein, its certificate certifying that he was duly and regularly 
elected to said office of Delegate to Congress ; and, further, that the said can- 
vassing board threatens to, and will perform and do each and all of the acts 
above stated before a hearing can be heard upon this petition, and will so pro- 
ceed unless a temporary rule is issued by this honorable court empowering and 
restraining said canvassing board from so proceeding, pending this litigation, 
and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this court ; whereupon the 
said Charles A. Sulzer prayed the court to issue its writ of mandamus di- 
rected to said canvassing board and each of the members thereof, commanding 
said canvassing board and each of the members thereof to reject and not count 
the alleged false, spurious, and illegal ballots therein referred to, and each and 
all of the same, and to reject the returns from said precincts v\'here said ballots 
were cast, and to canvass and compile the votes cast in said election from the 
returns, legal and regular, which he claimed to be the only legal and regular 
returns, and issue the certificates of election to him, the said Charles A. Sulzer, 
and that they show cause before this honorable court on a day to be fixed by 
the court why they have not done so ; and that they then and there return this 
writ with their certificates annexed of having done as they are commanded, or 
the cause of their omission thereof ; and the said petition also prayed for a 
temporary rule restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters 
and things therein complained of, or any one or all of them, pending the final 
determination of this proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to 
the court may seem just and equitable ; that the said petition was signed by the 
said Charles A. Sulzer, verified by him. and by him filed in the aforesaid dis- 
trict court for the Territory of Alaska, first division, on said March 2, 1917, 
and service of a copy thereof was made upon each of the members of the said 
canvassing board on said date. 

XI. 

That immediately upon the filing of the said petition in the said court an 
alternative writ of mandamus and a restraining order as prayed for in said peti- 
tion was issued by Robert W. Jennings, judge of said court, and immediately 
thereafter served upon each of the said members of the said canvassing board ; 
that said writ was entitled as hereinbefore described, and directed to the said 
canvassing board of the Territorry of Alaska, constituted for the purpose of can- 
vassing the vote cast at the election held on November 7, 1916, and to J. F. A. 
Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John P. Pugh, the persons constituting said 
board, and the commanding clause thereof was as follows : 

" I, Robert W. Jennings, judge of the above-entitled court, in the name of the 
United States of America, do hereby command you, and each of you, that in can- 
vassing the vote cast for Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska, at the 
election held on November 7, 1916, you reject and do not count the returns and 
the votes received and transmitted to you from the following precincts, to wit : 

Choggiung : 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer ': 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer S 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham , 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 



b WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Bonafield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Snlzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

and that you issue a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer. the relator 
lierein, certifying that he has been duly elected as a Delegate to Conaiess for the 
Territory of Alaska at the election held on November 7, 1916, and tiiat you, and 
each of you, return this writ with your certificate, and the certificates of each 
of you annexed, of having- done as you are herein commanded, or the cause of 
your omission thereof, on the 3d day of March, 1917, at the hour of 2 p. m. of 
iiaid day, at the courthouse in the city of Juneau. Alaska, and at the court room 
thereof, and you are hereby restrained from counting the votes or receiving the 
returns from any one or more of the precincts above named until the further 
order of this court. 

" Done in open court this 2d day of March, 1917. 

" RoBEKT W. Jennings, Judge." 

Tliat thereafter and on the same day a copy of the above order was served 
upon each of the said defendants, J. F. A. Strong, governor of Alaska ; Charles 
E. Davidson, surveyor general of Alaska ; and John F. Pugh. the collector of 
customs for Alaska, comprising the members of the said canvassing board. 

XII. 

That such proceedings were had in said case that on the 6th day of March, 
1917, John F. Pugh, one of the defendants in said cause, and the collector of 
customs for Alaska, and a member of said canvassing board, filed his verified 
answer in said cause, admitting all the allegations of the said petition and 
writ, and declared his willingness to comply with the alternative writ issued by 

XIII. 

That on March 7, 1917, a stipulation was filed by the attorneys for the said 
Charles A. Sulzer and signed by them and by the three defendants, the members 
of the canvassing board, settling the pleadings in the said cause. 

XIV. 

That on March 6, 1917, Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor of Alaska, and Charles 
E. Davidson, surveyor general of Alaska, members of said canvassing board, and 
a majority thereof, made answer to the alternative writ of mandamiis so served 
tin them in said cause, Avhich answer was on that day filed in said court and 
cause ; that said Strong and Davidson in their answer alleged as follows : 

In the District Court of the Territory of Alaska. Division No. 1. 

The Territoey of Alaska, on the relation oe Charles" 
A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff:, 

V. 

The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 

consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and 

John F. Pugh, defendants. . 

Come now J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, memliers of the can- 
vassing board for the Territory of Alaska, and defendants in the above entitled 
action, and for their answer to the alternative MTit of mandamus issued and 
served upon them herein, state as follows : 

1. That the territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election held 
in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November. 1916, and that the 
official tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, 
and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several 
candidates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 
votes ; Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersham. 6,490 votes. 

2. That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and 
the totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board, the said board voted 
to issue certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who 
had received the greatest number of votes in the said general election afore- 
said, as shown by the official tally sheets of the board; and that in pursuance 
of such action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alterna- 



Answer to alternative 
writ of mandamus. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



9 



tive writ of mandamus upon the members thereof q rprtifinafo r.f\^r.„^-■ 

3. That in the canvass of the returns from the votin- precincts named in thP 
al ernative writ of mandamus herein, and in the petition fileTStlSSuse Ht 
following irregularities were found in the returns from thrresi it ve Secftcts 
hnSiVf?"?r ^^'^ '?*?"^' ^^■•^^^ t^^^^ ^'°«ng precinct showed that onofficiai 
L'rb\no?sSS\S;" ^"'^'"^^^ accompanied the returns sLr.fwhy 

h.l?.''f"\""; ,^^'^ i-etnnis from this voting precinct showed that nonofficial 
bal ots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the return^ .Ik. vio-.,lf^^ 
such ballots had been used. In this connection, for the infoiSiation of the cm ? 
and as p;.rt of this answer, there is attached hereto, iZker-Eiifbitl'The 
original telegram received by the canvassing board fi^om the clerko? the Uni ed 
States District Court for the Second Judicial Division, in wliich the ?iid c lerl 
states that he has received an affidavit of one of the 1u is of th? DeeS 
Tffi"!f, WuT''' ""'"'^ '"" ^e^-t"icate from another of said i dges? showin<. w f 
officia ballots were not used in said voting precinct; and that saicrcle?k has 
milled a copy of said affidavit and certificate to the canvassing bSard but the 
same have not yet been received by the board ' ^ 

c,mr^\Tr'? ^^f ^'''"^ ''^ the Utica voting precinct, the returns showed that non- 
official l>almrs !iaa oeen used, but no certificate accompanied the returns shoAv^o. 
why such ballots were used. In this connection, reference is here made to Se 
telegi-am from the clerk of the district court for the second judicS? clivision 
hereto a tached as a part of this answer and marked "Exhibit A" in^S 

iT lelf U wr^''':;f f'r "•' '''T'' ^^^- ""'"'^ precinct had on Jamfa V 
18. 1917. is^sued a certificate showing Avhy official ballots were not used in said 

precmct that said clerk had received said certificate, and tha^l e hac maiS 

board!' ^-anvassing board; but the same has not yet been recehed by the 

Nizina: In the case of the Nizina voting precinct the oniy irregularity shown 

th.t nn^'Vi^*^'^r^"™'1' '?. ^^" ^^ ^^'^ canvassing board could determine, was 
that one of the three election judges had sworn the other two but there 
was nothing to show that he had himself been sworn: although he had 
signed the oath form with the other two judges 

Nushagak: In the case of the Nushagak voting precinct, the ballots used 
were Democratic " party worker's " ballots, but no certificate accompanied the 
returns showing why such ballots were used. 

^ Bonnifield: In the case of the Bonnifield voting precinct, ballots marked 
_ bample ballots ' were used, but no certificate accompanied the returns show- 
ing why such ballots were used. 

Vault : In the case of Vault voting precinct, the election judges did not sign 
.the certificate of result form on the back of the election registei^and tally book 
but the canvassing board received from the clerk of the United States district 
court for the fourth judicial rlivision. in which said precinct is located, the 
; Certificate of the clerk to election returns." bearing the names of the election 
judges for said voting precinct, and duly certified bv the clerk of the court as a 
full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in his office. 

4. That as to the reasons why the canvassing board counted the returns from 
the voting precincts named in the petition and in the writ of mandamus issued 
lierein these defendants state as follows : 

That, acting in the capacity of a canvassing board, thev believed, and still 
l)elieve. that they were acting in the capacity of a ministerial bodv onlv. and 
not as a judicial body, and, therefore, that it was not the dutv of' said "board 
to construe the provisions of the election laws, either Federal or Territorial, or 
to decide legal questions invoh^ed with respect to certain technical irregularities 
in the returns from any of the voting precincts, including the returns from the 
voting precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica. Nushagak. Bonnifield, 
and Vault, except to determine, in so far as they could, the rearintention of the 
voters ; there being no fraud shown on the face of the returns, and no allega- 
tions of fraud therein having been made to the canvassing board; and the 
board further believed, and still believes, that the provision of the law which 
directs election boards to show why official ballots were not used, is directory 
only. 



10 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

5. These defendants furthei- respectfully state that they have made no 
further answer to the allegations contained in the petition tiled herein, for 
the reason that the canvassing board has no funds with which to employ 
legal counsel, and the members thereof do not conceive it to be their duty 
to employ such counsel and pay for his services from their private means. 

Wherefore, having answered the writ herein, these defendants respectfully 
ask that they be discharged therefrom and that the proceedings herein l/e 
dismissed. 

J. F. A. Steong, 
Chaeles E. Davidson, 

Canvassing Board. 
Exhibit A. 

Signal Corps, United States Army. 
[Telegram.] 
Received at 35 sikg. 43 OB. 

Nome, Alaska, Fehriiarji 12. 1917. 
Steong, Governor-, 

Vhairman Canvassing Board, Juneau. 
Certificate Utica judges issued January 18th showing why olRci;il Ijallots 
not used received to-day. affiidavit of one certificate of second judge of elec- 
tion Deering Precinct dated February 2 of same tenor also received ; copies 
mailed. 

Adams, Cler]^: (3.45 p. m.). 
Governor's office. Received February 12, 1917. Answered. 

United States of America, 
Territory of Alaska, ss. 
I, J. F. A. Strong, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say that I 
am one of the defendants named in the above-entitled action, and a member of 
the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, being the chairman of said 
board ; that I have read the foregoing answer, know the contents thereof, and 
the same is true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

J. F. A. Strong. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of March. 1917. 

Ohas. E. Naghel, 
[notarial seal.] Notary Puhlie for Alaska. 

My commission expires November 1, 1920. 

Filed in the district court, District of Alaska, First Division, March 5, 1917, 
J. W. Bell, clerk, by John T. Reed, deputy. 

XV. 

That thereafter and on March 21, 1917, the said J. F. A. Strong, governor of 
Alaska, and Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general of Alaska, as members and 
a majority of the said canvassing board, made and filed in said court and 
cause a supplemental answer in which they show that in addition to the 
facts set forth in their original answer to the alternative writ, that a protest 
against the canvass and compilation of the election returns from certain pre- 
cincts in the different judicial divisions of Alaska, was filed with the can- 
vassing board on March 21, 1917, which sets forth in detail the precincts and 
the alleged irregularities charged in the protest, and the canvassing board 
filed a copy of said protest in said court and answered further saying that 
irregularities of different kinds did actually exist in many of the voting pre- 
cincts of the Territory, but the board being without legal counsel therefore 
begs to submit the protest herein referred to. and respectfully asked to be 
instructed as to what disposition the said board should make of said protest. 
That said protest so mentioned in said supplemental answer of the canvass- 
ing board, and attached thereto and made a part thereof, was filed with the said 
canvassing board by Emery Valentine on the 21st day of March, 1917. and in 
said protest the said Valentine protested against the counting of a large num- 
ber of returns from various precincts in each of the divisions of the Territory 
of Alaska for the irregularities mentioned therein, and he particularly calls 
the attention of the canvassing board to the fact that certain of the other pre- 
cincts which had not been objected to in the said suit brought by the said 
Sulzer were afflicted with the same identical defects as those pointed out in 
the said suit, and that in the precincts mentioned in the protest and which 
were not included in the list of precincts objected to by Sulzer, a majority of 



WICKEESHAM VS. ■ SULZEE. 11 

the votes were in favor of the said Sulzer, and if stridden out would reduce 
his vote and not increase it ; that said supplemental answer of the canvass- 
ing board, together with the protest of the said Emery Valentine, was filed 
in said court and cause on March 21, 1917. 

XVI. 

That upon ascertaining that said supplemental answer, together with the 
protest of the said Emery Valentine, had been filed with the said court in said 
cause and in answer to the request of the majority of the canvassing board as 
to what disposition the board should make of the said protest, Robert W. Jen- 
nings, judge of the said court, wrote a letter dated March 22, 1917, addressed 
to Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor 
general, members and a majority of the said canvassing board, and caused the 
same to be served in due and legal form upon each of the said members of the 
said canvassing board, and caused a copy thereof to be filed in the office of the 
clerk of the said court and in said cause, together with proof of service thereof 
upon the members of the said canvassing board. The said letter is in the fol- 
lowing words : 

United States district court, first division, District of Alaska, Robert W. 

Jennings, Judge. 

Judge's Chambers, 

Juneau, March 22, 1911. 
Hon. J. F. A. Stkong, Governor, and 

Hon. Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor General, 

Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. 

Gentlemen : At your request, as I am informed, the clerk of this court has 
brought to my attention a certain communication signed by you, in which you 
state that a protest has been filed with the canvassing board by Mr. Emery 
Valentine, of this city, suggesting the rejection of the votes of certain precincts 
cast at the last election for Delegate to Congress, and in which you state that the 
" board begs to submit the protest herein referred to, and respectfully asks to 
be instructed as to what disposition the said board should make of said protest," 
and in reply I have to state : 

Your communication is entitled in the cause " The Territory of Alaska on the 
relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, 
Charles E. Davidson, and John P. Pugh, defendants. No. 1593." 

The above-entitled cause is a proceeding brought in this court for the issuance 
of a mandamus compelling you to reject, i. e., not count the returns from certain 
precincts stated in the petition on account of certain alleged fatal defects — not 
irregularities, but defects — in the returns from said precincts. An alternative 
writ of mandamus was issued and served upon you, and you were also enjoined 
from issuing the certificate of election to James Wickersham. To that alterna- 
tive writ and the petition on which it was founded you have made answer, 
stating : 

" That the Territorial canvasing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election held 
in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that the official 
tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, and that 
the same showed the following result of the vote for the several candidates for 
Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ; Charles 
A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes; and James Wickerham, 6,490 votes." (Par. 1.) 

And further, " that in pursuance of such action by the canvassing board, and 
prior to the service of the alternative writ of mandamus upon the members 
thereof, a certificate of election was prepared by said board for issuance to 
James Wickersham as Delegate to Congress from Alaska for the term beginning 
March 5, 1917 ; but that before said certificate had been signed and issued by the 
board the members thereof were served with the writ of mandamus herein." 
(Par. 2.) 

Your answer further avers that the allegations of fact made in the petition 
as to the reasons why the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Utica, Nushagak, 
Bonnifield, and Vault should not be counted were true, but that you considered 
that, nevertheless, said precincts should be counted and that you counted them. 

The plaintiff demurred to your answer, and that brought up the question as 
to whether or not on your answer the certificate should be issued to Wickersham 
or Sulzer. 



12 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

It furthei' aiDpeared from your answer tliat you had no attorney. At the 
hearing on this demurrer Mr. Davidson was present in court, and the court ad- 
vised him to procure an attorney ; whereupon he stated : 

" Your honor, we have no interest in it any more than we would like the law 
point decided, and we have made our answer the best we could, and we have 
Qo other interest any more than to obey the orders of this court, whatever they 
may be." 

The court then heard argument on the demurrer in open court, and on the 
20th day of March, 1917, in open court made and filed its order herein, sustaining 
the demurrer of the plaintiff, and filed its written opinion, and you have been 
furnished with copies of said opinioii. I endeavored to make that opinion as 
full and clear as I could. 

It appears that in the 6.490 votes you have credited to James Wickersham, and 
in the 6,459 votes credited to Charles A. Sulzer, and in the 1,346 votes credited 
to Lena Morrow Lewis, you counted votes from the precincts questioned in the 
petition and which the court hns decided should be rejected, and in your answer 
you stated that you had completed the canvass. 

In view of the allegations of the answer and of what Mr. Davidson stated in 
open court, the court concluded that all other questions had been passed upon 
by you and that you had indeed completed your " canvass and compilation," and 
" that the official tally sheets made up by the board were duly totaled and 
checked." Now you state in your communication to me that some private citizen 
has lately entered a protest of some kind and that there are some irregularities 
which have not entered into the case that has been lieard before me, and on 
which I issued the alternative writ, and you ask my advice as to what you 
shall do. 

I would be very glad indeed to advise you if I were at liberty to do so, but 
occupying the position which I do occupy, i. e., being the judge before whom the 
cause" is pending, it would be very improper for me to take any such action. 
When a matter is pending in court the judge of that court is in no position to 
act as the legal adviser of one of the litigants, neither can he instruct them ex- 
cept through orders, judgments, and decrees, duly made. I think, however, 
that I may say this much without transgressing the rules of propriety : The court 
will, if you so desire, tre;it your communication as an amended and supplemental 
answer. If you desire it to be so treated you should serve a copy thereof on 
the attorneys for the plaintiff. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

Robert W. Jennings, Judge. 

Copies to Gov. Strong and Mr. Davidson. 

Filed in the district court, District of Alaska, first division, March 22, 1917, 
J. W. Bell, clerk, by John T. Reed, deputy. 

XVII. 

That thereafter and on March 23, 1917, Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and 
Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general, wrote the following communication 
and delivered the same to Robert W. Jennings, judge of said court, and the 
same was filed in said court and cause on March 23, 1917 : 

Teeritoey of Alaska, Goveenor's Office, 

Juneau, March 23, 1917. 
Hon. Robert W. Jennings, 

Judge, United States District Court, First Judicial Division, 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Dear Sir : The undersigned members of the Territorial canvassing board beg 
to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 22, with reference to a com- 
munication addressed to you, in which it was stated that the canvassing board 
had been served with a document by Mr. Emery Valentine, of Juneau, protest- 
ing against the counting of certain specified election returns from various voting 
precincts in the four "judicial divisions in Alaska, on the ground that the 
" district court holds that no documents which were not inclosed and forwarded 
to the governor's office as part of the original returns can be counted or taken 
into consideration by the board." 

The reason for the submission of the protest to you was set out in our com- 
munication above referred to and forwarded to you on March 22 by the above- 
named members of the board. 

In reply we wish to say that we merely asked to be instructed as to the proper 
method or procedure in disposing of the protest above referred to; and your 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 



13 



reply seems to indicate that no attention should be paid to protests entered 
by private citizens as to alleged irregularities in election returns, and therefore 
it would seem that the above members of the canvassing board held erroneous 
views on this matter. You also state that the court will, if we so desire, treat 
our communication of March 22 as an amended and supplemental answer. We 
wish to advise you, therefore, that we have no desire to have you treat the com- 
munication in that manner, nor have we any other answer to make at this 
time, having, as we believe, performed only what we, though apparently er- 
roneously, believed was a simple duty. 

Finally, we wish to state, distinctly and unqualifiedly, that, having per- 
formed what we believed to be our duty and in the interest of no candidate, we 
are without further interest in the matter. 
EespectfuUy, 

J. F. A. Strong, Governor. 

Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor General. 

Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, first division, March 23, 1917. 
J. W. Bell, clerk. By ■ , deputy. 



XVIII. 

That thereafter, and on the 23d day of March, 1917, the said Robert W. 
Jennings, judge of the said court in the said cause, without taking any evidence 
or hearing witnesses, and without any further proceedings than those men- 
tioned, made and signed a peremptory writ of mandamus, directed to the can- 
vassing board of the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A, Strong, Charles 
E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, and in the words and figures following, to wit : 

In the district court for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. 

The Teeritory of Alaska, on the relation of " 
Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, 

V. i^Peremtory writ of man- 

damus. No. 1593-A. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 
•consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, 
and John F. Pugh, defendants. 

To the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J, F. A. 

Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh. 
To you and each of you greeting : In the name of the United States of America. 

Whereas on the 2d day of March, 1917, the plaintiif herein duly filed his 
petition for a writ of mandamus, wJiich said petition is in words and figures 
as follows : 

" In the district court for the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. 

" The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of ' 
Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and 
plaintiif, 

'^- l>Petition. No. 1593-A. 

The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 
consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and 
John F. Pugh, defendants. , 

" To the honorable Robert W. Jennings, judge : 

" The relator and petitioner herein petitions this honorable court for a writ 
of mandamus and a temporary rule as hereinafter more specifically set forth, 
and in that behalf respectfully alleges and avers : 



"I. 

" That the relator and plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Delegate 
to Congress at the election held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of 
November, 1916, and as such candidate was voted for by the people of Alaska 
at said election, he having been regularly nominated and placed upon the 
official ballot pursuant to the provisions of law entitling him to become a 
candidate and entitling Mm to a place upon the otiicial ballot. 



14 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

"II. 

" That at said election one James Wickersham was also a candidate for the 
said office of Delegate to Congress, and one Lena Morrow Lewis was also a 
candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress. There were no other 
candidates. 

"III. 

" That the above-named J. F. A. Strong is the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, duly appointed and acting as such ; that the above-named Charles A. 
Davidson is the duly appointed and acting surveyor general of the Territory 
of Alaska, and the above-named John F. Pugh is the duly appointed and acting 
collector of customs for the Territory of Alaska. 

"IV. 

" That the above named comprise the canvassing board empowered and 
directed by law to canvass the votes cast by the voters of the Territory of 
Alaska at the election held on the 7th day of November, 1916, for the office of 
Delegate to Congress, and other officers. 

"V. 

" That the said board named as the respondent herein is now in session, and 
has been in session for some time past, engaged upon its duties of canvassing 
the returns of the various precincts within the Territory of Alaska. 

" VI. 

" That from the aforesaid returns from said election it appears that of the 
total votes cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress this 
relator and plaintiff received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 
(5,414 votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received J, 346 votes. 

" VIL 

" That thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue a 
certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to this relator 
and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received the highest 
number of votes, as shown by said return. 

" VIII. 

"That the said canvassing board has refused, and is still refusing, to issue 
said certificates of election to this relator and plaintiff, but on the contrary 
has threatened and announced their intention to disregard tlie legal election 
returns above referred to in determining to whom said certificate shall issue 
and threaten and intend to count and canvass together with the returns afore- 
said certain false, spurious, and illegal votes, which returns and votes if counted 
together with the legal returns of votes will change the result of the said elec- 
tion as hereinafter set forth. 

"IX. 

" That the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns threatened to be 
counted consists of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from the following 
precincts of the Territoory of Alaska, to wit : 

Choggiung : 

For .James Wickersham 2-5 

For Charles A. Sulzer 8 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

'For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer ^ 2 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 15 

Nushagak : 

For James Wic-kersham 10 

For Charles A. Snlzer 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James AVickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

"X. 

" That in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering. Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, and 
Bonafield, the said vote was, and is, illegal, false, spurious in this, that the 
votes cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing board were 
not cast in accordance with law in that the voters casting said ballots failed to 
use the form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska and failed to use 
the official ballots prepared for said election according to the laws of Alaska, 
but, on the contrary, in casting said votes, used a form of ballot either pre- 
pared by the voters themselves or by some person other than the person or 
persons authorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots. 

"XL 

" That the laws of Alaska provide as follows : 

" ' That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election sliall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns.' 

" XII. 

" That in each and every one of the precincts above referred to. where no 
official ballots were used, no certificate explaining the facts which prevented 
the use of the official ballot accompanied the returns. 

"XIII. 

" That in none of the precincts above enumerated where the official ballot 
was not used, as aforesaid, were the election returns transmitted to the can- 
vassing board accompanied by a certificate of the judges of election, or of any 
other person or persons whatsoever, certifying to the facts, if any there were, 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, if the use of such ballots was in 
any manner prevented, but on the contrary the ballots cast, if any were cast, 
in each of the precincts above enumerated were returned to the election board 
without any certificate setting forth any facts which in anywise prevented 
the use of the official ballot. 

" XIV. 

" That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, 
iind illegal in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law and in 
that no certificate of the result of the election in said precinct specifying the 
number of votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was Included in said 
returns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. 

" XV. 

" That if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct 
afox-esaid are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, together 
witli the legal votes cast at said election, the total vote counted for Jamtes 
Wickersham will be 6,490. and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer Avill be 
6.459. 



16 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

" XVI. 

" That tlie said canvassing board do now tlireaten and intend and will, unless 
restrained by an oi'der of tliis honorable court, so count and include said false, 
spurious, and illegal votes in compiling the totals from said election returns 
for the Territory of Alaska, and do now threaten and intend and will, unless 
restrained by this honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said ' 
James Wickersham, based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstanding 
that your relator and plaintiff herein received the highest number of votes cast 
at said election and is entitled to said certificate of election. 

" XVII. 

" That plaintiff and relator has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law and will be deprived of a corticate of election entitling 
him to the office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska unless this 
court issue this return of mandate compelling the said canvassing board to 
reject and not count the returns from each and all of the foregoing precincts 
hereinbefore enumerated and compelling the said canvassing board to issue to 
the relator and plaintiff herein its certicate certifying that he was duly and 
regularly elected to • said office of Delegate to Congress ; and further, that the 
said canvassing board threatens to and will perform and do each and all of 
the acts above stated before a hearing can be heard upon this petition, and will 
so proceed unless a temnorai-y rule is issued by this honorable court empowering 
and restraining said canvassing board from so proceeding, pending this litiga- 
tion and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this court. 

" Wherefore the relator and plaintiff herein prays that this honorable court 
issue its writ of mandamus directed to said canvassing board and each of the 
members thereof commanding said canvassing board and each of the members 
thereof to reject and not count the false, spurious, and illegal ballots herein- 
before referred to, and each and all of the same, and to reject the returns from 
said precincts where said ballots were cast, and to canvass and compile the 
votes cast in said election from the returns, legal and regular, as hereinbefore 
stated, and issue a certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, or that they 
show cause before this honorable court on a day to be fixed by the court why 
they have not done so, and that they then and there return this writ with their 
certificates annex^ of having done as they are commanded, or the cause of 
their omission thereof. 

"And further, that a temporary rule be made and issued out of this court re- 
straining the said board from proceeding to do the matters and things herein 
complained of, or any one or all of them, pending the final determhiation of 
this proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem 
just and equitable. 

"And plaintiff further prays for his costs and disbursements in his behalf in- 
curred. 

" John R. Winn, 

" Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 

"Attorneys for Plaintiff. 

" Terkitoey of Alaska, 

" Dwision No. 1, ss: 
" Charles A. Sulzer, being first duly sworn according to law, on oath deposes 
and says : That he is the relator and plaintiff herein ; that he has read the fore- 
going complaint and petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary rule; 
that he knows the contents thereof; and that the facts therein stated are true 
as he verily believes. 

" Charles A. Sulzer. 

" Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of IMarch, 1917. 
"(Notarial Seal.) "Simon Hellenthal, 

" Notary Public for Alafska. 
" My commission expires November 30, 1917. 

" Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, first division. Mar. 2, 1917. 
J. ^Y. Bell, clerk. By , deputy." 

And whereas on the filing of said petition an alternative writ was on said 
day duly issued herein (which said alternative writ of mandamus and the peti- 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 17 

titui on which it was based were on the same day dulj' ser'^ed upon yon) 
connnanding yon to do the things aslved in tlie petition or to show canse on the 
3d day of Marcli, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m., at tlie conrthouse at Jnneau, why 
yon had not done so ; and 

Whereas on the 5tla day of Marcli, 1917. you, the said J. F. Pugli, did tile 
your answer herein, in which you admitted the allegations of the petition and 
the writ of mandamus ; and you, J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, did 
tile your answer, wherein it was stated : 

" That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the first day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election held 
in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that the 
official tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, 
and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several candi- 
dates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ;^ 
Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersliam, 6,490 votes ; " 
and where it was further stated: 

•' That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and 
the totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board said board voted to 
issue certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who had 
j-eceived the greatest number of votes in the said general election aforesaid 
as shown by the official tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance of 
such action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alternative 
vvrit of mandamus upon the members thereof, a certificate of election was pre- 
pared by said board for issuance to James Wickersham as Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska for the term beginning March 5, 1917, but tliat before said 
certificate had been signed and issued by the board the members thereof were 
served with the writ of mandamus herein, and no further action has been taken 
looking to the issuance of said certificate of election pending the further order 
of tlie court herein ; " 

and wherein it was further stated that in the canvass of the returns from the 
voting precincts named in the alternative writ of mandamus herein and in the 
petition filed in this cause the returns from the voting precincts of Choggiung, 
Deering, Utica, Nushagak, and Bonnifield showed that there had not been any 
official ballots cast at said election, and that no certificate accompanied the 
returns from said precincts showing why nonofficial ballots were xised at said 
election ; and wherein it was further stated that as to the said precinct of 
Vault the election judges did not sign the certificate of result form in the back 
of the election register and tally book, but the canvassing board received from 
tlie clerk of the United States court for the fourth judicial division " the cer- 
tificate of clerk to election returns " ; and 

Whereas to said answer a demurrer was duly filed and duly argued and 
taken under advisement by the court, and afterwards, to wit, on the 20tfi day 
of March, 1917, the court announced its decision, to the effect that in comput- 
ing the number of votes to which each candidate was entitled it was the plain 
duty of the board under the law to reject — that is, not to count — the alleged 
votes from the said precincts aforesaid, which said votes aggregated, Wicker- 
sham 69 and Sulzer 19 (except Nizina), and to deduct the said 69 votes re- 
turned for Wickersham from said precincts and the said 19 votes returned for 
Sulzer from said precincts, respectively, from tfie number which the board had 
credited to each of the said two candidates as aforesaid ; and 

Whereas the defendants in said cause were given two days in which to amend 
their return to the said alternative writ, if they should so desire ; and 

Whereas the said two days expired at 12 o'clock midnight on the 22d of 
March and no amended return has been filed herein, and no further cause shown. 
why the alternative writ should not be made peremptory ; but on the contrary 
said defendants have filed herein their statement to the effect that they did not 
desire or intend to further appear herein ; and 

Whereas on this 23d day of March, 1917, plaintiff herein duly moved that 
the alternative writ herein be made peremptory for the reason that no sufficient 
cause has been shown to the contrary ; and 

Whereas the court is satisfied that the defendants do not desire or intend to- 
show any further cause, and doth now find from the records and files herein, 
that if the total number of votes to which the canvassing board has returned 
that James Wickersham is entitled to (to wit, 6490) and that Charles A. Sulzer 
is entitled to (to wit, 6459) should suffer a reduction of 69 and 19, respectively, 
it will clearly appear that Charles A. Sulzer has received the greatest number 
13289—17 2 



18 WiCKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

of votes for the office of Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that he is en- 
titled to tlie certificate of election therefor ; and 

Whereas the court doth further find that with the exception of making the 
deduction aforesaid and of issuing said certificate said board has completed the 
canvas ; and 

Whereas the court, on motion of plaintiff this day made, has issued an order 
making said alternative writ peremptory ; 

Therefore, this is to command you, and each of you, that upon receipt of this 
^^'rit of mandamus you do fortliwith convene as a canvassing board for the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, and that you reject the votes from the said precincts of 
Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Vault, and that you issue 
a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the greatest 
number of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that said certificate 
be in the usual form, as by law provided. 

And this you are in nowise to omit. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this 23d day of March. 1917. 

(Court Seal.) Robeet W. Jennings, Judge. 

That the said peremptory writ of mandamus was served upon each member of 
the said canvassing board on the said 23d day of March, 1917, commanding 
them and each of them to do the things mentioned therein. 

XIX. 

Ti'Jit t'ler^nfter and on March 24, 1917, the snid canvassing board, consisting 
of Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor of Alaska; Hon. Charles E. Davidson, sur- 
Aeyor general of Alaska; and Hon. Charles F. Pugh, collector of customs for 
Alaska, each a member of the said canvassing board, met in the governor's 
office in regular session at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m. and thereupon the follow- 
ing proceedings were had and taken : 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska and chairman of the 
canvassing board, do hereby certify that the within is a full, true, and correct 
copy of tlie minutes of the Iward recording the transactions of said board on 
the 24th day of March, 1917, and of the whole of the transactions of said board 
on the said 24th day of March, A. D. 1917. 

■ In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 24th dav of March, 
A. D. 1917. 

J. F. A. Strong, 
Governor of the Territory of Alaska and 
Ex Officio Chairman of the Board of Canvassers. 

" Governor's Office, ilarcli 2Ji, 1911. 

" The canvassing board met at 10 a. m. on this date in pursuance to a per- 
emptory writ of mandamus issued out of the district court, division No. 1, at 
Juneau, commanding the board to forth^^'ith convene as a canvassing board for 
the Territory of Alaska, and to reject the votes of Choggiung, Deering, Nusha- 
gak, Utica, JBonnifield, Vault, and the court has further found ' that with the 
exception of making the deduction aforesaid and of issuing said certificate, said 
board has completed the canvass.' The court commanding the board to issue a 
certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the greatest num- 
ber of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that the certificate be 
made in the usual form as by law provided. 

" Governor. The law provides no form of certificate and never has. The cer- 
tificate we have used has been simply one drawn up by this office. 

" Governor. The purpose of the meeting has been stated. What do you want 
to do about it? 

" Mr. Pugh. I move that we start to take off the tally sheets the vote for 
Delegate as indicated in the writ, namely, Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, 
Utica, Bonnifield, Vault. 

" Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

" Governor. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the tally sheets 
should be corrected to comply with the command of the court ; that is, the votes 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 19 

so far as Delegate be eliminated. 69 votes should be deducted from Jas. 
Wickersham ; 19 votes should be deducted from Chas. A. Sulzer. 

" Mr. PuGH. I move that we issue certificate in the same form as we did two 
years ago. 

" Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

" Governor. It has been regularly moved and seconded that this board do 
therefore issue a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer in accordance with 
the above peremptory writ of mandamus, and that also in accordance with the 
aforesaid writ of mandamus, the certificate be issued in the usual form. 

" Governor. It had better be stated that while the writ declares that the cer- 
tificate be in the usual form as by law provided, the law provides for no form. 
The form heretofore used has been one that was provided by the canvassing 
board. 

" Governor. All in favor of the motion say " aye." 

" Motion unanimously carried. 

" Go\'ernor. This peremptory writ of mandamus should be made a part of 
the records. 

" Mr. Davidson. I move that the peremptory Avrit, all other writs.- copies of 
all opinions and court decisions, together with all correspondence with refer- 
ence thereto, received by the board, be made a part of the records of this board. 

" Mr. PuGH. Motion seconded. 

" Governor. It is moved and seconded that the peremptory writ of mandamus 
issued out of the court for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, Juneau. 
March 2.3, together with all other writs, opinions, court decisions, and all cor- 
respondence relating thereto, be made a part of this record. All those in favor 
Avill say " aye." 

" Unanimously carried. 

" Mr. PuGH. I move that the board adjourn. 

" Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

" Governor. It is moved and seconded that the board adjourn. All in favor 
will say " aye." 

" Unanimous that the board adjourn." 

That thereupon and on March 24, 1917, and not before, being coerced by the 
aforesaid peremptory writ of mandamus so issued and signed by the said 
Robert W. Jennings, the said canvassing board did make, sign, and deliver to 
the said Charles A. Sulzer. a certificate of election based upon the vote so cast 
for him and for this contestant on November 7, 1916. as hereinabove particu- 
larly set out and stated, all of which was in violation of law and without 
notice to this contestant, and thereafter and on April ,3. 1917, the said Charles A. 
Sulzer presented his said certificate to the House of Representatives in regular 
session and took the oath of office and ever since has acted and claimed to be 
the regularly elected and acting Delegate from Alaska in pursuance to the pro- 
ceedings in this petition set forth and not otherwise. 

XX.. 

Tliat wrongfully and intending to defraud this contestant of his right as the 
duly elected Delegate from Alaska in the Congress without notice or opportunity 
to appear and defend his right thereto the said Charles A. Sulzer brought 
said suit in said court in Alaska secretly and in the absence of this contestant 
from the Territory of Alaska, and during the time when this contestant was 
in attendance as Delegate from Alaska upon the regular session of the Sixtv- 
fourth Congress, in the city of Washington; that said Sulzer wrongfullv aiid 
intending to secure an unlawful advantage in said suit, and well knowing this 
contestant to be the real party in interest in said suit and a necessarv party 
thereto, brought his said suit against the members of the said canvassing board 
and unjustly and in violation of law refused to make this contestant a party 
to said suit or to give this contestant any notice of the pendency thereof or any 
opportunity to appear therein and to defend his right as the duly elected Dele- 
gate from Alaska in said suit ; and this contestant was not at any time made 
a party to the said suit and \\-as not n said Territory of Alaska at any time 
during the pendency thereof, and nei.'ier contestant nor any person for or 
representing him had notice thereof nor appeared therein; and the said pro- 
ceedings in said suit from its beginning to final judgment were had without 
any notice to or appearance by this contestant. 



20 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER, 

XXI. 

That said suit so brought by said Charles A. Sulzer, contestee herein, in said 
district court in Alaslia, first division, was brought before and heard in all its 
stages by Robert W. Jennings, judge of said court; that said Robert W. Jen- 
nings was a candidate for Delegate from Alaska in opposition to, this con- 
testant at the general election in the Territory of Alaska on August 13, 1912, 
and was defeated at the polls by a large majority ; that thereafter he was ap- 
pointed judge of said court ; that he is a bitter political partisan opponent 
of this contestant; that John F. Pugh, the collector of customs for Alaska^ 
and a member of said canvassing board, is the brother-in-law of said Robert 
W. Jennings, and also a bitter political opponent of this contestant ; that both 
said Jennings and said Pugh well knew at all the times when the said suit by 
said Sulzer against said canvassing board was pending that this contestant was 
a necessary and proper party in interest in said suit, but both wrongfully and 
intending to permit an unlawful and unjust advantage to be taken of this con- 
testant and to have his right to said office unlawfully taken from him in his 
absence, did all the matters and things done by them or either of them in said 
suit, well knowing that no notice had been given to this contestant of the pen- 
dency thereof, and well knowing that he, the said contestant, was then in 
attendance as Delegate from Alaska upon the then closing session of the Sixty- 
fourth Congress, of which contestant was a member as Delegate from Alaska. 

XXII. 

Contestant alleges that neither said district court for the district of Alaska, 
Division No. 1, as aforesaid, so presided over by Robert W. Jennings, as judge as 
aforesaid, nor the said Robert W. Jennings, as judge aforesaid, had or acquired 
any jurisdiction, power, or authority, either in equity or in law, in said cause, 
entitled " The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and 
Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 
Pugh, defendants. No. 1593-A," in said court, or at all, to hear or determine the 
matters and things set forth and alleged in the pleadings filed therein, or to 
make or enforce any order, decree, or judgment therein, or to do any act 
or thing therein (except to dismiss said suit), for the reason that said 
pleadings therein and the record showed upon their face that said plead- 
ings did not state any cause of action entitling the relator and plaintiff to any 
relief or judgment, and did not state any cause of action against said canvass- 
ing board or any member thereof, and because it appeared on the face thereof 
that neither said canvassing board nor any member thereof was the real party 
in interest therein, or was a necessary or proper party thereto, and because it 
appeared on the face thereof that this contestant was the real party in interest 
in said suit, was a necessary, indispensable, and proper party thereto, and was 
not made a party thereto and had not been served with copy of the plaintiff's, 
petition nor served with notice of the pendency thereof, and had not voluntarily 
or otherwise appeared therein, and because it appeared upon the face of said 
pleadings and record that a fraud and a wrong was being purposely perpetrated 
upon the electors and citizens of Alaska and upon this contestant by bringing 
said suit without making this contestant a party thereto, intending thereby to 
procure a judgment therein determining this contestant's i-ight to said certifi- 
cate of election aforesaid without notice to him or an opportunity to him to be 
heard to defend and protect his and the public right to an honest election and 
a fair count, and because it appeared upon the face of said pleadings and record 
that the said Charles A. Sulzer had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law 
afforded to him by the provisions of the various acts of Congress authorizing- 
the hearing and trial of contested election cases before the House of Representa- 
tives of the United States, and especially by the provisions of chapter 8, sec- 
tions 105-130, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 1878, and subsequent 
amendments thereto. 

XXIII. 

That by the provisions of the said act of Congress entitled "An act providing 
for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from the Terri- 
tory of Alaska," approved May 7, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 169), and by the seventeenth 
section of the act of Congress entitled "An act to create a legislative assembly 
in the Territory of Alaska, to confer legislative power thereon, and for other 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 21 

purposes." approved August 24. 1912 (37 Stat. L., 512), the Coneress of the 
Lnited States established a full general plan and law for the election of said 
Delegate, by fixnig the date of said election, the qualifications of voters pro- 
viding tor election precincts, election officers, the method of voting, the form of 
ballots and returns, and the canvass and compilation of said returns the pav- 
ment of all expenses thereof, and generally provided au exclusive method of 
conducting such election, and tlie Territory of Alaska has not now and never 
had any power or authority to alter, amend, modify, or repeal the said laws. 

XXIV. 

That the Legislature of Alaska at its second session in 1915 passed an act 
entitled "An act to provide official ballots for elections in the Territorv of 
Alaska," approved by the governor of said Territory on April 27, 1915; that 'said 
act provides for the printing and use of ballots at all elections in said' Territory 
in compliance with its title, and in section 21 thereof it is provided : 

" Sec. 21. That in any precinct where the election has been legally called 
and no official ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or 
print their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the 
facts which prevented the use of the official ballots, which -certificate must 
accompany and be made a part of the election returns." 

That the foregoing section is the law and the only law relied upon by the 
said Robert W. Jennings, judge of said district court aforesaid, as authority 
for making and issuing the said writ of mandamus by which he commanded 
and compelled the aforesaid canvassing board to reject, cast out, and fail to 
canvass and compile the said 69 votes so cast for this contestant in the said 
precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, and Bonnifield, in said 
Territory, and which were so rejected from said canvass and compilation by 
said canvassing board under the coercive power of his said writ. 

XXV. 

That the members of the canvassing board aforesaid, after said suit was 
brought in said court by said Sulzer, and before said peremptory writ of 
mandamus was issued and served upon them, declared their purpose to apply 
the law so found and announced by said Robert W. Jennings, judge aforesaid, 
to all the returns so before them for canvass and compilation and declared 
their intention and purpose upon the decision of said judge to so correct and 
amend said canvass and compilation in accordance with the rule of law 
declared by him and enforced upon them by said writ, so as to apply the same 
rule alike to all returns before them for canvass and compilation ; and to 
apply to the returns from all other precincts the same rules as those applied 
to Chogginung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Vault, but said 
judge thereupon extended his said order of mandamus to prevent said uni- 
formity of the application of the said rules by providing in his said peremptory 
order of mandamus as follows : 

" Whereas the court doth further find that with the exception of making 
the deduction aforesaid and of issuing said certificate said board has com- 
pleted the canvass." 

Whereby the canvassing board was unlawfully and unjustly prevented from 
performing its duty and was prevented from fairly and lawfully correcting and 
amending the canvass and compilation in accordance with the rule of law so 
announced by said judge. 

XXVI. 

That the members of the canvassing board aforesaid, after said suit was 
brought in said court by said Sulzer, and before said peremptory writ of man- 
damus was issued and served upon them, declared their purpose to state the 
facts in the certificate of election issued to the successful candidate, and to 
recite the facts therein that the change of their canvass and compilation of the 
votes as shown upon their then official tally sheets was so made upon and in 
submission to the peremptory writ of mandamus if any was served upon 
them ; but said Robert W. Jennings, judge aforesaid, so unlawfully and un- 
justly extended his said order of mandamus to prevent said truthful statement 
in the following clause thereof: 



22 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

" Therefore, this is to command you, and eacli of you, that upon receipt of 
this writ of mandamus you do forthwitli convene as a canvassing board for the 
Territory of Alaska, and that you reject tlie votes from tlie said precincts of 
Clioggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Vault, and that you issue 
a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the greatest 
number of votes for Delegate from Alaska, and that said certificate be in the 
usual form as by law provided " ; 

that the law does not provide any form for such certificate, and the said 
peremptory rule was unlawful and was so issued to hinder and prevent said 
canvassing board from reciting the truth and the facts in said certificate in 
explanation of their action in rejecting against their judgment the returns 
from said precincts. 

XXVII. 

That said Charles A. Sulzer, contestee herein, wronfully and with intent 
to defraud the electors of the Territory of Alaska of their right to elect a 
Delegate from Alaska to Congress, at said election as aforesaid, and to defraud 
this contestant of his right to the said certificate of election as aforesaid, 
purposely and fraudulently confined his attack and objection to the returns 
so pending bef.ore said canvassing board from the precincts of Choggiung, 
Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Vault, well knowing there were the 
same or similar defects in other precincts which returned majorities for him 
which if rejected under the same rule of law would reduce the total vote cast 
for him. said Sulzer, below that cast for this contestant and thereby result in 
the issuance of said certificate of election to this contestant; that in the 
XIV paragraph of his said petition to said court said Sulzer alleged: 

" That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, 
and illegal, in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law and in 
that no certificates of the result of the election in said precinct specifying the 
number of votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was included' in said 
returns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska ; " 
that contestant is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief 
alleges, that identical and similar defects existed in the returns from the pre- 
cincts of Juneau No. 1, Tokotna. and Loring, in said Territory, which returns 
the canvassing board canvassed and compiled under the rule applied by them to 
the aforesaid precinct of Vault ; that the returns from said precincts of Juneau 
No. 1, Tokotna, and Loring were and are false, spurious, and illegal, and in that 
said returns were and are not certified to as provided by law and in that no 
certificate of result of the election in said precinct specifying the number of 
votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was included in said returns, as 
required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska ; that in the precinct 
of Loring said Sulzer received 26 votes and this contestant 2 votes, in the pre- 
cinct of Takotna said Sulzer received 24 votes and this contestant 13 votes, and 
in the Juneau No. 1 precinct said Sulzer received 435 votes and this contestant 
247 votes ; that if said returns from Juneau No. 1 precinct, Tacotna and Loring 
precincts are rejected upon the same grounds as those in Vault precinct, and the 
same action of the court taken thereon the total vote cast for said Sulzer will* 
thereby be reduced below the total vote cast for this contestant ; all of which 
both said Sulzer and said Robert W. Jennings, judge, well knew ; and upon the 
declaration of said canvassing board of its purpose to apply the same ride to all 
returns alike in the correction of the canvass and compilation of said returns the 
said judge further extended his said writ and prohibited said board from 
doing so. 

XXVIII. 

That the said canvassing board was compelled by the said A^i-it of mandamus 
so made by said Robert W. Jennings, judge, to reject from said canvass and 
compilation the returns from Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, and Bonni- 
field for the reason that otlier ballots were used in said precincts than those 
provided by the clerk of the court, as provided by law, and because no certifi- 
cate of the judges of election in each of said precincts certifying to tlie facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots was made by said officers to 
accompany said returns as a part thereof ;this contestant is informed and 
believes and so alleges that the returns of said election from the precincts of 
Tokotna and Naknek, in said Territory, so pending before said canvassing 
board with the returns from Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, and Bonni- 
field, showed that no official ballots had been used or cast in either said Tokotna 
or Naknek precincts at said elections, and said two returns were not either 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 23 

accompanied by any certificates signed by the judges of election or anyone 
certifying the facts which prevented tlie use of said official ballots, and that 
no such certificate was made a part of said returns when so received, can- 
vassed, and compiled by said canvassing board; and that these facts were 
kiiov\'u to said Sulzer when he brought his said suit and by said judge when 
he made his order of mandamus : and said canvassing board after the bringing 
of said suit and before the service upon them of the peremptory writ of man- 
damus announced their purpose to apply the same rule of law"^ to all returns 
that was required by said judge to be applied to the precincts of Choggiung, 
Deering. Nushagak. Utica. and Bonnifield. and to amend and correct all the 
returns alike in submission to the courts statement of law and rule of amend- 
ment : that in the precincts of Takotna said Sulzer received 24 votes and this 
contestant but 13 votes, and in the precinct of Naknek said Sulzer received 9 
\'otes and this contestant but 2 votes, and if said precincts had been objected 
to by said Sulzer and rejected under the court's order said Sulzer would not 
have hud tlie greatest number of all the votes cast at said election ; and to 
prevent the rejection of said votes said Sulzer omitted to mention them in his 
petition and to prevent the canvassing board from applying the same rule to 
them that the court applied to Choggiung, Deering. Nushagak, Utica, and 
Bonnifield, the said judge in his said writ of mandamus so unjustly and 
unlawfully extended it by including a clause therein prohibiting said canvass- 
ing board from further amending or correcting or rejecting the returns from 
said Tokotna and Xaknek precincts. 

XXIX. 

That at said election of November 7, 1916, in the second division of Alaska, 
Phil Corrigan and T. M. Reed were, respectively, candidates for election to the 
Territorial house of representatives, noAv in session in the capital at Juneau. 
Alaska ; at said election there were 768 votes cast for Phil Corrigan and 762 
votes cast for T. M. Reed ; that in the said precinct of Utica there were 16 
votes cast for Corrigan and but 4 votes cast for Reed ; it was and is the duty 
of the Territorial canvassing board aforesaid to canvass and compile the re- 
turns from Utica for members of the legislature in the same manner and by 
the same law as they are canvassed and compiled for the election of Delegate, 
and they are the same identical returns ; that the official -ballots did not r'each 
the said Utica precinct for use on election day, and the voters were permitted 
to write or print their ballots in accordance with the law ; but that the judges 
of election, as alleged in Sulzer's said petition and found by Robert W. Jen- 
nings, judge, in said peremptory writ when served, did not certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, and no such certificate accom- 
panied and was made part of the election returns ; that Corrigan received 16 
votes in Utica precinct and Reed received 4 votes, and the votes in Utica pre- 
cinct would and did determine which. Corrigan or Reed, was elected ; the 
canvassing board canvassed and compiled said Utica precinct votes for Corri- 
gan and Reed, and by said votes Corrigan was declared elected and Reed 
defeated ; if said Utica votes had been rejected Corrigan would have had but 
7.52 votes, while Reed would have had 758 votes, a greater number than Corri- 
gan and therefore elected ; that if the same rule applied to the canvass and 
compilation of said Utica precinct to reject them for contestant had been gen- 
erally applied the said Reed would have been elected to said legislature and 
not said Corrigan. 

XXX. 

That at said election of November 7. 1916. in the third division of Alaska, 
Joseph Murray and Tom Holland, were, respectively, candidates for election to 
the Territorial house of representatives, now in session in the capital at 
Juneau. Alnska ; at said election there were 1.250 votes cast for Murray and 
1,242 votes for Holland; that in the precincts of Choggiung and Nushagak Mur- 
ray received 31 votes and Holland 10 ; that the returns canvassed and compiled 
by the canvassing board from said Choggiung and Nushagak precincts in 
respect to the said election of Murray and Holland, were the same identical 
returns \\-hich were rejected by virtue of the peremptory writ of mandamus 
issued by said Robert W. Jennings, by which this contestant was prevented 
from having said votes counted for him; and if the same rule applied under 
said writ to this contestants votes in said two precincts had been applied to 
said returns in the Murray-Holland returns, Holland would have been elected 
instead of Murray, who was declared electe<l and was seated and is now a mem- 
ber of said legislature in virtue of the returns from said Choggiung and Nusha- 



24 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

gak precincts ; tliat if tlie same rule of law in tlie canvass and compiling of 
tlie said returns from Utica, Choggiung. and Nushagak precincts as was ap- 
plied to the Corrigan-Reed and Murray-Holland contests had been applied by 
tlie canvassing board to the Sulzer-Wickersham contest this contestant would 
thereby have had and received the greatest number of votes cast for anj' can- 
didate for Delegate from Alaska; that the said canvassing board justly and 
lav'fully ,ap]')lied s:'id uniform rule in its canvass and compilation to each and 
all of its said returns, but the said Robert W. Jennings, judge of said court, 
imjustly and in violrtion of lav/ and equity prohibited the application of such 
uniformity in his said peremptory writ of mandamus and required and com- 
pelled said canvassing bo.ard to apply a different rule in the compilation and 
canvass of the returns for the delegate election by the rejection of said returns 
from Utica, Choggiung, and Nushagak, which had been duly counted in the 
said legislative contest. 

XXXI. 

That contestant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that at the 
election in Eagle precinct, Alaska, on said November 7, 1916, four persons cast 
their votes for said Sulzer, which votes were counted and are included in the 
total number of votes canvassed and compiled for said Sulzer in said precinct ; 
that each of said four persons was an enlisted soldier in the Army of the 
United States, who was in Alaska upon and under the orders of his superior 
oflicer, and was so under command at said Eagle precinct when be and each 
of said four persons so cast his said vote at said election ; that neither of said 
four persons was at the time he cast said vote, or at any time, an actual and 
bona tide resident of Alaska and had not been such resident continuously during 
the entire year immediately preceding the election, and had not resided con- 
tinuously for 30 days next i^receding the election in said Eagle precinct. 

XXXII. 

Tliat contestant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that at the 
election in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, on said November 7, 1916, 34 persons 
cast their votes for said Sulzer, which votes were counted and are included in 
the -total number of votes canvassed and compiled for said Sulzer in said pre- 
cinct ; that each of said 34 persons was an enlisted soldier in the Army of the 
United States, who was in Alaska upon and under the orders of his superior 
officers, and was so under command at said Fort Gibbon precinct when he and 
each of said 34 persons so cast his said vote at said election ; that neither of 
said 34 persons was at the time he cast his said vote or at any time an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska, and had not been such resident continuously 
during the entire year immediately preceding the election, and had not resided 
continuously for 30 days next preceding the election in said Fort Gibbon 
precinct. 

XXXIII. 

That prior to the general election on November 7, 1916, official ballots had 
never been used at an election for Delegate or memliers of the legislature in 
Alaska: the general-election laws passed by Congress (to wit, the afo)'esaid act 
of May 7, 1906, 34 Stat. L., 169. and the seventeenth section of the act of Aug. 
24, 1912, 37 Stat. L., 512, 517) for the control of elections for Delegate from 
Alaska to Congress do not and never did require an official ballot, but section 9 
of said act of May 7, 1916 (34 Stat. L., 172), specially provided : 

" Sec. 9. * * * The voting at said election shall be by printed or written 
bnllot. The ballot at said first election shall be in suhstautially the following 
form : 

" FOR DELEGATE FROM ALASKA. 

" For the short term (here insert the name of the person voted for). 

" For the long term (here insert the name of the person voted for). 

"At all elections after the first election the ballot shall be substantially in the 

following form : 

" FOR DELEGATE FROM ALASKA. 

"(Here insert the name of the joerson voted for.)" 

No official ballot was provided for by Congress in voting for Delegate from 
Alaska, but the Legislature of Alaska, in chapter 25, Laws of Alaska, 1915, pro- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 25 

\ 

vided for official ballots. The election of November 7, 1916, was the first general 
4ilection held for the election of a .Delegate from Alaska to Congress after the 
passage of said Territorial act, and its provisions were not known to election 
officers in distant precincts. 

XXXIV. 

That contestant has no information why the said official ballots did not reach 
the Deering and Utica precincts in time for use on November 7. 1916, and that 
said i-etnrns from >^aid iirecincts were ordered to be rejected l)y s;!id Robert W. 
Jennings, judge, in the trial of said cause between Sulzer and liie lioard. though 
attached to the answer of tlie canvassing Iward to the alternative writ of man- 
damus. Gov. Strong and Surveyor Gen. Davidson alleged, in paragraph 3 of 
said answer, that they had lieen notified by telegraph on February 12. 1917, 
before the board had ceased to canvass and compile said returns, liy the clerk 
of the district court at Nome. Alaska, that certificates from judges of said elec- 
tions in said Deering and Utica showing why official ballots had not been used 
at said precincts at said election had been received liy him and were being 
forwarded to the canvassing l^oard : and contestant is now informed and alleger 
that said certificates have been received by the said members of the canvassing 
board in Juneau. Alaska, on April 4. 1917 ; that said returns fi-om said precincts 
were ordered to be rejected by said canvassing board by the said Robert W. 
Jennings, judge, in his said peremptory writ of mandamus, although he was 
advised that said certificates were then on their official way to said canvassing 
board. 

XXXV. 

That contestant is informed and believes, and so alleges, that the official bal- 
lots for the election to be held on November 7, 1916, in the Choggiung and 
Nushagak precincts were, with election blanks and other data required by chap- 
ter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska. 1915. forwarded by the clerk of the court 
at Valdez, Alaska, in the regular United States mail, directed to the proper 
election officials in both Choggiung and Nushagak precincts in the month of 
September. 1916 : that said Choggiung and Nushagak precincts are on the shores 
of Bristol Bay : that the mail boat does not go regularly to Bristol Bay, and not 
at all after the date mentioned : that the mail for said precincts is landed at 
Cold Bay. on the south side of Alaska Peninsula, and carried overland across 
to said precincts by such carrier as comes along ; that said mail boat to that 
region only makes one trip a month, and that during the months of September, 
October, November, and December. 1916. the said mail boat did not land the 
mail at Cold Bay on account of bad weather; that said September mail was not 
so landed until January 12, 1917, and the official ballots for said Choggiung and 
Nushagak precincts did not reach said precincts at any time prior to November 
7, 1916; that said election officers at said precincts did not receive the copy 
of the law of 1915 aforesaid, or the printed blanks and instructions so for- 
warded by said clerk, and without such official instructions they failed, through 
ignorance of the law, to inclose with the returns any certificates to the effect 
that the ballots so cast for Delegate from Alaska under the act of Congress of 
May 7, 1906. were used by reason of the fact that the Territorial official ballots 
had not been received ; that said Sulzer, contestee. had. prior to the close of 
navigation in Bristol Bay. forwarded certain sample ballots to said precincts, 
and in the absence of all other ballots electors voted said Sulzer's sample bal- 
lots, striking off the name of Sulzer and writing in the name of James Wicker- 
sham, this contestant, for Delegate from Alaska ; that no claim or charge of 
fraud in the use of said ballots was made to the canvassing board or to the said 
court which tried the said case of Sulzer v. The Canvassing Board, aforesaid, and 
it was a matter of public knowledge in that region that said ballots and election 
blanks had not and could not reach said Choggiung and Nushagak precincts in 
time for the election on November 7, 1916. 

Wherefore contestant prays the House of Representatives of the United 
States for the Sixty-fifth Congress to hear this contest and the evidence offered 
in support of it, and that contestant have a full and fair count of the votes 
cast for him as Delegate to Congress from Alaska, as aforesaid. That upon 
the final hearing the House of Representatives seat this contestant as such 
Delegate from Alaska in Congress, as of right and under the laws of the 
United States It ought to do. 

Dated Washington, D. C, April 10, 1917. 

James Wickersham. 

Contestant. 



26 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 

United States of America, 

Washington, District of Columbia, ss: . 
■James Wickersham, being duly sworn, says that he has read the foregoing 
petition by him subscribed and knows the contents thereof and that the same 
is truQ as he verily believes. 

James Wickeesham. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of April, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Mull, 

Notary Public for the District of Columbia. 
My commission expires May 1, 1918. 

United States or America. 

Washington, District of Columbia, ss: 
I, George A. Jeffery, an indifferent person, of Washington, D. C, being duly 
sworn, depose and say that on the 10th day ofr April, 1917, I served a true 
copy of the above and foregoing notice of contest and petition thereto attached 
on Charles A. Sulzer. the contestee named in the proceeding, by delivering 
to the said Charles A. Sulzer said true copy thereof at Washington, D. C. 

Geoege a. Jeffery. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of April, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Mull, 

Notary Public for the District of Columbia. 
My commission expires May 1, 1918. 

Answer to notice of contest. 

To the House of Representatives of the 

United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, First Session. 
Comes now Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and makes the following answer 
to the petition of James Wickersham, contestant : 

I. . 

Said contestee admits the first allegation in the said petition that the people 
of the Territory of Alaska are entitled to chose a Delegate to the House of 
Representatives of the United States, as provided in the act of Congress en- 
titled "An act providing for the election of a Delegate to the House of Repre- 
sentatives from the Territory of Alaska," approved May 7, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 
169), to be chosen by the people thereof in the manner and at the times pre- 
scribed by the laws of the United States and of the Territory of Alaska, and 
who shall be known as the Delegate from Alaska. 

II. 

Said contestee admits the second allegation in said petition that the said 
James Wickersham was a duly nominated candidate for the said office of Dele- 
gate from Alaska at the said general election held on the 7th day of November, 
1916. Said contestee alleges that he also was a duly nominated candidate for 
the snid office of Delep; te from Ah sk • ■• t tlu^ general election held pursu;int to 
the statutes of the United States in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of 
November, 1916. Said contestee further alleges that upon the date of said elec- 
tion he was and for more than seven years prior thereto had been and he now 
is a native-born citizen of the United States, and was then and is now an inhabi- 
tant in and a qualified voter of the District of Alaska, and was not less than 
25 years of age. 

III. 

Said contestee admits the third allegation in said petition that at the said 
general election so held in said Territory on said 7th day of November, 1916, 
there were three candidates for the said office of Delegate from Alaska: (1) 
James Wickersham, the contestant; (2) Charles A. Sulzer, the contestee; and 
(3) Lena Morrow Lewis. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 27 

Said contestee denies tlie fourtli allegation in said petition tliat tlie said con- 
testant received the greatest number of votes at tlie said election so held in tlie 
said Territory of Alaska on the said 7th day of November, 1916 ; denies that 
said contestant was thereby duly elected Delegate to Congress from the said Ter- 
ritory of Alaska ; and denies that said contestant is now eiititled to a seat as 
Delegate from Alaska in the House of Representatives in the Congress of the 
United States in the Sixty-fifth Congress now in session. Said contestee alleges 
in answer thereto that he received the greatest number of votes cast for any 
person or candidate for the office of Delegate from Alaska at the said election 
held on the said 7th day of November, 1916, and that he is thereby the duly 
qualified and elected Delegate from Alaska and entitled to his seat in the House 
of Representatives of the Congress of the United States as the said Delegate 
from Alaska in the Sixty-fifth Congress now in session. Said contestee further 
states that his election to the said office of Delegate from Alaska was duly cer- 
tified by the canvassing board of the Territory of Alaska after duly canvassing 
the total vote cast at said election, as was their duty under the law, and that he 
now holds his seat in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the 
United States, as said Delegate from Alaska, to which he was duly elected and 
said election duly certified as aforesaid. 

V. 

Said contestee denies the allegations contained in Section V of the said peti- 
tion and alleges in answer thereto that at the said election so held in said Terri- 
tory of Alaska on said 7th day of November. 1916, on the face of the returns of 
said election as canvassed by the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska 
authorized and provided for by the twelfth section of the aforementioned act of 
Congress so approved May 7, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 173), the following vote was cast 
for James Wickersham, contestant, and for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and 
for said Lena Morrow Lev.is, respectively, to wit : For James Wickersham, con- 
testant, 6,414 votes; for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, 6,43S votes; for Lena 
Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes. 

VI. 

Said contestee. in answer to the sixth allegation in said contestant's petition, 
admits that the said canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, as provided 
in section 12 of said act of Congress, approved May 7, 1906, consisted of Hon. 
J. F. A. Strong, governor of Alaska ; Hon. Cliarles E. Davidson, surveyor 
general of Alaska ; and Hon. John F. Pugh, the collector of customs for Alaska ; 
and said canvassing board met and organized as said canvassing board in the 
city of Juneaii, Alaska, at the public office of the governor, in the month of 
February, 1917, and from day to day met in session as said canvassing board ; 
but said contestee alleges that said canvassing board, in receiving, canvassing, 
nd compiling in writing the returns of election as received from the said election 
precincts in said Territory, in accordance with the several provisions of the 
laws of the United States, were about to count certain illegal, spurious, and 
fraudulent votes, and if these illegal, spurious, and fratidulent votes had been 
counted as legal votes contestant would have received the greatest number of 
votes cast for any person or candidate for the office of said Delegate from 
Alaska, and would have been elected ; but when these illegal, fraudulent, and 
spurious votes were rejected and not counted by the canvassing board, as was 
properly done after the legality of said votes had been passed on by the proper 
court in a proper legal proceeding, as is hereinafter described, and the official 
tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, the 
result showed that the contestee herein had received the greatest number of 
votes cast for any candidate, and was therefore elected to the said office, and 
thereupon the said board issued to the said contestee the certificate of election 
as required by law. 

vn. 

This contestee alleges, in answer to the seventh allegation in contestant's 
said petition, that the said alternative writ of mandamus was issued to prevent 
said board of canvassers from receiving and tabulating the said illegal, spurious, 
and fraudulent votes and the issuing to the contestant of the certificate of elec- 
tion to the said office of delegate from Alaska. 



28 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

VIII. 

I 
This coiitestee denies eacli unci every allegation contained in Section VIII 
of contestant's petitions. 

IX. 

This contestee admits the allegations contained in Section IX of said con- 
testant's petition. 

X. 

This contestee admits the facts in Section X of said contestant's petition 
as alleged, with this exception : In the ninth and tenth lines of said Section X 
of the said petition the words " official and authorized " should be " unofficial and 
unauthorized," so that the said section would then be as follows: "The ground 
stated in said petition as the basis for the relief demanded was that the election 
returns from the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Nushagak, Utica, 
Bonnifield, and Vault, in said Territory, were invalid and void for the failure 
of the election officers in said precincts to include and return witli said returns 
a certificate certifying the reasons why the one form of the official ballot was 
not received in said polling places and used at said election and why other 
ballots, also unofficial and unauthorized by law, were used in place thereof; 
that said petitioner, Sulzer, among other things in said petition, alleged that 
from the said returns of said election it appears that of the total vote cast in 
said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress the relator and plaintiff, 
Charles A. Sulzer, received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 
6,414 votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes ; and further 
alleged that thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue 
a certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to the relator 
and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being tlie person having received the highest 
number of votes, as sliown by said returns ; and further alleged that the said 
canvassing board has refused and is still refusing to issue said certificate of 
election to this relator and plaintiff, but, on the contrary, has threatened and 
announced their intention to disregard the legal election returns above referred 
to in determining to whom said certificate shall issue, and threaten and intend 
to count and canvass together with tlie returns aforesaid certain false, spurious, 
and illegal votes, which returns and votes if counted together with the legal 
returns of votes will change the result of the said election as hereinafter set 
forth ; and furtlier alleged that the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns 
threatened to be counted consists of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from 
the following precincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit : 

Choggiung : 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer , 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonnifield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

And further alleged that in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, 
Nushagak, and Bonnifield the said vote was and is illegal, false, spurious in 
this : That the votes cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing 
board were not cast in accordance with law, in that the voters casting said 
ballots failed to use the form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska, 
and failed to use the official ballots prepared for said election according to the 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 29 

laws of Alaska, but on the contrary, in casting said votes, used a form qt bal- 
lot either prepared by the voters themselves or by some person other than the 
person or persons authorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots ; and 
further alleged that the laws of Alaska provide as follows: "That in any pre- 
cinct wherethe election has' been legally called and no official ballots have been 
received, the voters are permitted to write or print their ballots, but the judges 
of election shall in this event certify to the facts which prevented the use of 
the official ballots, which certificate must accompany and be made a part of the 
election returns " ; and further alleged that in each of the precincts above re- 
ferred to where no official ballots were used, no certificate explaining the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballot accompanied the returns ; and 
further alleged that in none of the precincts above enumerated where the official 
ballots were not used as aforesaid, were ihe election returns transmitted to the 
canvassing board accompanied by a certificate of the judges of election or of 
any other" person or persons whatsoevere certifying to the facts, if they were, 
Mdiich prevented the use of the official ballots, if the use of such ballots was in 
any manner prevented, but on the contrary, the ballots cast, if any were cast, 
in each of the precincts above enumerated, were returned to the election board 
without any certificate setting forth any facts which in anywise prevented the 
use of the official ballot ; and further alleged that the returns from the afore- 
said precint of Vault are false, spurious, and illegal in that said returns are 
not certified to as provided by law and in that no certificat of the result of the 
election in said precinct, specifying the number of votes cast for each candidate, 
accompanied or was included in said returns, as required by section 402 of the 
Compiled Laws of Alaska; and further alleged that if the aforesaid false, 
spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct aforesaid are counted and canvassed 
by the said canvassing board, together with the legal votes cast at said election, 
the total vote counted for Jam.es Wickersham will be 6,490 and the total vote 
cast for Charles A. Sulzer will be 6,459 ; and further alleged that the said can- 
vassing board do now threatent and intend, and will unless restrained by an 
order of this honorable court, to count and include said false, spurious, and 
illegal votes in compiling the totals from said election returns for the Territory 
of Alaska, and do now threaten and intend and will, unless restrained by this 
honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said James Wickersham, 
based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstanding that your relator 
and plaintiff herein received the highest number of votes cast at said election, 
and is entitled to said certificate of election ; and further alleged that the plain- 
tiff and relator has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of the law, and will be deprived of a certificate of election entitling him to the 
office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska, unless the court issue 
this return or mandate compelling the said canvassing board to reject and not 
count the returns from each and all of the foregoing precincts hereinbefore 
enumerated, and compelling the said canvassing board to issue to the relator 
and plaintiff herein its certificate certifying that he was duly and regularly 
elected to said office of Delegate to Congress ; and further, that the said can- 
vassing board threatens to and will perform and do each and all of the acts above 
stated before a hearing can be beard upon this petition, and will so proceed 
unless a temporary rule is issued by this honorable court empowering and 
restraining said canvassing board from so proceeding pending this litigation 
and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this court ; whereupon the 
said Charles A. Sulzer prayed the court to issue its writ of mandamus directed 
to said canvassing board and each of the members thereof, commanding said 
canvassing board and each of the members thereof to reject and not count the 
alleged false, spurious, and illegal ballots therein referred to, and each and all 
of the same, and to reject the returns from said precincts where said ballots 
were cast, and to canvass and compile the votes cast in said election from the 
returns, legal and regular, which he claimed to be the only legal and regular 
returns, and issue the certificate of election to him, the said Charles A. Sulzer, 
and that they show cause before this honorable court on a day to be fixed by 
the court why they have not done so ; and that they then and there return this 
writ with their certificates annexed of having done as they are commanded or 
the cause of their omission thereof ; and the said petition also prayed for a 
temporary rule restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters 
and things therein complained of, or any one or all of them, pending the final 
determination of this proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to 
the court may seem just and equitable ; that the said petition was signed by 
the said Charles A. Sulzer, verified by him, and by him filed in the aforesaid 



30 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

district court for tlie Territory of Alaslca, first division, on said March 2. 1917, 
and service of a copy tliereof was made upon eacli of tlie members of tlie said 
canvassing board on said date. Tliis contestee, furtlier answering tlie tenth 
section of said contestant's petition, states tliat the said canvassing board 
secured tlie opinion in writing of the Territorial counsel for the Territory of 
Alaska with reference to *lie counting or rejecting of the said false, spurious, 
and illegal votes, and a copy of said opinion is made a part hereof, attached 
hereto, and marked " Exhibit A" ; that the final action of said canvassing board 
in issuing the certificate of election aforesaid to this contestee was in full 
accord and in compliance with the law as set out in the said opinion of the said 
Territorial counsel. This contestee, further answ^ering said section 10 of the 
said contestant's petition, submits herewith, makes a part hereof, and attaches 
hereto a copy of the proceeding entitled " The Territory of Alaska on the rela- 
tion of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff," duly 
certified by the clerk of the district court for the Territory of Alaska, first 
division, and marked " Exhibit B," but which contains only the opinion of the 
judge of said court in said proceeding. 

XI, XII, XIII, XIV. 

This contestee, answering Sections XI, XII, XIII, and XIV of contestant's 
said petition, admits the allegations contained therein. 

XV. 

This contestee answering Section XV of contestant's said petition, denie.s 
that the said camassing board on March 21, 1917, or on any other date or 
at any other time, filed a supplemental answer in the said district court of 
the Territory of Alaska, in the cause herein described. l)ut alleges that the 
said canvassing board filed a communication with the said court, in which 
it was set forth that a protest had been filed with the said canvassing board 
by one Emery Valentine protesting against the receiving and counting of 
certain precincts not herein specified, on account of alleged irregularities in 
said votes ; said board in said communication asked said court to instruct 
them v,'hat disposition to make of the said protest ; Robert W. Jennings, judge 
of s;nd court, replied promptly in writing to said communication from said 
Ijoard, stating that it would be improper for the court to give them advice 
in the premises but that the said court would, if the said board so desired, 
treat and receive the said communication as an amended and supplemental 
answer in the cause aforesaid, then pending before said court ; the said 
canvassing board replied thereto that it was not their desire that their said 
communication be received and treated by said court as a supplemental answer 
in the said cause. This contestee further states that the paper presented to 
the said canvassing board by the said Valentine was a letter of protest simply, 
unsupported by affidavit or by any other proof whatsoever of any irregularity 
or wrongdoing in said unnamed precincts ; that the returns fi'oni said unnamed 
precincts had already been received, tabulated, and counted by said canvass- 
ing board ; that none of the said votes so protested by said Valentine were 
involved in any way whatsoever in the said cause then pending in said court, 
to which the said can^'assing board were parties; that the attempt of the 
contestant to give credence to the said unsupported statement of said Emery 
Valentine, when he well knew the facts, ^^-as done with a deliberate intent to 
create the belief that the said unsupported statement was such that it should 
have been acted upon by said canvassing board and that the said court by not 
accepting said unsupported statement as a basis of a supplemtal answer in 
the said cause then pending before said court, acted unjustly and unfairly 
toward said contestant ; this contestee further alleges that the said court in 
the said mandamus proceedings showed, in every way possible, his disposition 
to act justly and fairly to all the parties thereto and to the contestant, as the 
proceedings and records in said cause fully demonstrate. This contestee. 
further answering said Section XV of said petition, denies each and every 
other allegation contained therein. 

XVI, XVII. 

This contestee. answering Sections XVI and XVII of contestant's said peti- 
tion, admits the allegations contained therein. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 31 

XVIII. 

This contestee, answering Section XVIII of contestant's said petition, admits 
the linding of said court, as tlierein stated, and tlie service of tlie said 
peremptory writ on tlie said canvassing board at tlie time and in the manner 
srated, but denies each and every other allegation contained in said section. 

XIX. 

Thi-^ contestee, answering Section XIX of contestant's said petition, admits 
that the said canvassing board issued the said certificate of election to Charles 
A. Sulzer, this contestee. in obedience to the order of said court and as the . 
result of the canvass and compilation of che votes cast in said election from 
the legal and regular returns made by the said board. This contestee denies 
each and every other allegr.tion contained in said section. 

XX 

This contestee, answering Section XX of contestant's said petition, denies 
each and every allegation contained m said section. 

XXI. 

This contestee, answering Section XXI of contestant's said petition, admits 
th:!t the said Robert W. Jennings was a candidate for Congress in 1912 and 
that he is a brother-in-law of said John F. Pugh and denies each and every 
lather allegation in said section; aii.I further states th-U the said proceeding 
for mar.dcunus was l)i-(iught against the proper party, the said canvassing board; 
that the said James V\'ickersham was not a p,<rty to said prsjceeding and could 
not properly have lieen made a party thereto; that he w,is repres^nited, how- 
ever, liv volunteer counsel in said proceeiliug i:i said court, au'l the judge, in 
hi< 'iii'iion in said case, statf^d that he did not lielieve that the said .T:!mes 
Wi<-i^;<r>'iain could have been better represented it' he had been a party to the 
.>aid jn'oceeding. 

XXII. 

This contestee, ansvs-erinf;: Sectictn X7vII of contestant's said petition, denies 
each anil every allegation contained therein au'l further states that the said 
district court for Alaska, first division, presided over by said Robert W. Jen- 
nings, judge, bad full and complete j'li-i-diction to hear and determine the 
matter submitted to the said court, and th't i"he ;lerrees and iu'lgments of the 
said court were binding on the narties defendant, the canvassing board afore- 
said. 

XXIII. 

This contestee. ansv.ering Section XXIII of contestant's said petition, admits 
the passa.se of the said acts of Congress referred, to, approved, respectively, on 
May 7, 19(»6. and Ahgust 24. 1912, and denies each and every other allegation 
contained in said section: and alleges further that the said act of Congress 
approved August 24, 1912, pr(.)vided " tliat all the laws of the United States hei'e- 
tofore passed establishing the executive and judicial departments in Alaska 
shall continue in full force and effect until amended or repealed by act of Con- 
gress ; that except as herein provided all laws now in force in Alaska shall con- 
tinue in full force and effect until altered, amended, or repealed by Congress or 
by the legislature ;" that said law was amended by act of the legislature of the 
Territory of Alaska on April 27, 1915, under the authority given it by the said 
act of Congress approved August 24, 1912. 

XXIV. 

This contestee, answering Section XXIV of contestant's said petition, admits 
the allegations contained therein and further alleges that under the laws of the 
Territory of Alaska as stated in section 24 of said petition the votes of the. said 
precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, and Bonnifield, in the said 
Territory of Alaska, were propeFly rejected and not counted by said canvassing 
board. 



32 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

XXV. 

This contestee, answering Section XXV of contestant's said petition, admits; 
the truth of the said decision of tlie said court contained therein, and denies 
each and every otlier allegation in said section. 

XXVI. 

This contestee. answering Section XXVI of contestant's said petition denies 
every allegation therein excepting the statement of the said court's decision 
therein referred to, which he admits. 

XXVII. 

This contestee, answering Section XXVII of contestant's said petition, denies 
each and every allegation therein excepting that part of said section which 
quotes from the 14th paragraph of the petition of said Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee, to the said district court of the Territory of Alaska as aforesaid. 

XVIII. 

This contestee, answering section XXVIII of contestant's said petition, denies 
each and every allegation contained therein. 

XXIX, XXX. 

This contestee, answering Sections XXIX and XXX of contestant's said 
petition, denies each and every allegation contained therein, and, answering 
further, states that if said statements in said sections were true they would 
be wholly immaterial, irrelevant, and improper allegations so far as the election 
contest at issue is concerned. 

XXXI, XXXII. 

This contestee. answering Sections XXXI and XXXII of contestant's said 
petition, states that he has not sufficient knowledge at this time to form an 
opinion and belief as to whether soldiers voted at Eagle and Fort Gibbon pre- 
cincts, in the Territory of Alaska, in the election aforesaid, but alleges that 
there is nothing in the laws of the Territoi*y of Alaska or of the United States 
to prevent a soldier from voting simply because he is a soldier if he is otherwise 
qualified to vote. 

XXXIII. 

This contestee. answering Section XXXIII of contestant's said petition, ad- 
mits the law as stated in said section and denies each and every other allega- 
tion contained therein. 

XXXIV, XXXV. 

This contestee, answering Sections XXXIV and XXXV of contestant's said 
petition, denies that certificates showing why the official ballots were not used 
in certain precincts in the election aforesaid in the Territory of Alaska, as 
required by the laAvs of the Territory of Alaska, received on April 4, 1917, 
nearly five months after the said election, should in any way affect the relative 
rights of contestant and this contestee, because they show no compliance M'ith 
said law of the said Territory of Alaska, which requires that such certificates 
should accompany the returns of the election when certified to the canvassing 
board aforesaid ; further answering said Sections XXXIV and XXXV of said 
petition, this contestee denies each and every other allegation contained in said 
sections. 

1. 

This contestee, further answering contestant's said petition, states that he is 
informed and verily believes that at the voting precinct in the town of Ketchikan, 
Territory of Alaska, at the aforesaid election, John F. Chamberlain and .loseph 
Meherin and divers other citizens, whose names are unknown to this contestee, 
at least 12 in number, were unjustly, improperly, and illegally denied the right 
to vote by the election officials at the said voting precinct in the town of Ketchi- 
kan, because they did not live within the corporate limits of said town ; that 
these persons who attempted to vote at said election at said voting precinct in 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 33 

% 

said town were all citizens of tlie first judicial division of the Territory of 
Alaska and had resided within said first division for more than one year prior 
to their said attempt to vote at said election and were duly qualified to vote at 
said voting precinct, in said towh, at said election held on November 7, 1916; 
said persons intended to vote, and would have cast their ballots for Charles A. 
Sulzer, this contestee, for Delegate from Alaslia to the Congress of the United 
States at said election if they had not been unjustly and unlawfully denied the 
right to vote as aforesaid. 

2. 

That at the voting precinct of Craig, in the Territory of Alaska, he is informed 
and verily believes, that Charles Demmert, Mrs. Charles Demmert, Peratovich 
brothers, and more than 30 other fully qualified voters, whose names are to him 
unknown, were unjustly, improperly, and illegally denied the right to vote at 
said voting precinct at said election held on November 7, 1916, by the election 
officials at said voting precinct of Craig ; that the said qualified voters were not 
permitted to register and were denied the right to vote at said election at the 
instance of partisan supporters of the contestant, James Wickersham ; that this 
contestee is informed and verily believes that these said persons thus fraudu- 
lently and wronfuUy denied the right to vote at said election were refused siTch 
right because they were friends of this contestee, Charles A. Sulzer, and would 
have cast their votes for him if they had been permitted to vote at said election. 



That this contestee is informed and verily believes that the several judges of 
election aioresaid at the voting precincts of Bonanza,- Granite, and Fidalgo, 
in the Territory of Alaska, were not sworn to perform their official duties 
as judges of said election at said voting precinct as required by the laws of 
the Territory of Alaska ; that they were not qualified to sit as judges in the 
said election held November 7, 1916, and that the alleged election held at each 
of said voting precincts of Bonanza, Granite, and Fidalgo on November 7, 
1916, was illegal and void and that the election returns from each of said 
precincts of Bonanza, Granite, and Fidalgo were suprious and illegal and should 
be excluded from the tabulation and count as made by the said canvassing 
board. 



That this contestee is informed and verily believes that Louis Klposh and 
divers other persons to him unknown, who were not residents of the third 
judicial division of the Territory of Alaska, were unlawfully and fraudulently 
permitted by the election officials at the voting precinct at Sourdough, in the 
Territory of Alaska, in said third judicial division, to cast their votes at said 
voting precinct, at said election held on November 7, 1916, and their votes so 
unlawfully and fraudulently cast were certified to the said canvassing board 
by the said election officials at the said voting precinct of Sourdough, and were 
received, counted, and tabulated by said canvassing board ; this contestee is 
further informed and verily believes that said votes so illegally and fraudu- 
lently cast at said voting precinct at said election were tabulated and counted 
by said canvassing board in favor of the contestant, James Wickersham ; and 
that said votes so illegally and fraudulently cast at said voting precinct at said 
election should be rejected and not counted and not considered as a part of 
the election returns from the said voting precinct at Sourdough at the said 
election held on November 7, 1916. 

5. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that at the voting precinct 
at Afognak, in said Territory of Alaska, at the said election held on November 
7, 1916, there were more than 30 fraudulent and unlawful votes cast by persons 
wlio were not qualified to vote at said precinct at said election; that the elec- 
tion officials at said voting precinct at Afognak accepted said fraudulent and 
unlawful votes and included them in the election returns made by said election 
officials from said voting precinct to the said canvassing board and that they 
were received, counted, and tabulated by said board ; that said votes so illegally 
and fraudulently cast at said voting precinct at Afognack at said election were 

13289—17 3 



34 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

tabulated and counted by said canvassing board in favor of this contestant, 
James Wickersham ; that all of said illegal and fraudulent votes should be 
excluded from, and not counted with the ejection returns from said voting 
precinct at Afognak, or that the entire vote of the said precinct at said election 
should be excluded and not counted because of said illegality and fraud at 
said voting precinct. 

6. 

Tbat this contestee is informed and verily believes that at the Seldovia voting 
precinct, in the Territory of Alaska, at the said election held on November 7, 
1916, more than 30 illegal and fraudulent votes were cast by persons who were 
not legally qualified or entitled to vote at said precinct at said election, and 
said illegal and fraudulent votes were wrongfully and unlawfully accepted 
by the election officials at said voting precinct of Seldovia and were included 
in the return made by the said election officials of the vote at said voting 
precinct at said election, to the canvassing board aforesaid, and were received, 
tabulated and counted by said board ; that said votes so illegally and fraudu- 
lently cast at said Seldovia voting precinct at said election were cast in favor of 
the contestant, .Tames Wickersham ; that all of said illegal and fraudulent votes 
should be excluded from, and not counted with, the election returns from said 
voting precinct of Seldovia, or that the entire vote of said precinct at said elec- 
tion should be excluded, and not counted, because of said illegality and fraud at 
said voting precinct. 

7. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that at the Unalakleet 
voting precinct, in the Territory of Alaska, at the said election held November 
7, 191G, more than 20 illegal and fraudulent votes were cast by persons who 
Avere not legally qualified and entitled to vote at said voting precinct at said 
election ; that the election officials at the said Unalakleet voting precinct wrong- 
fully accepted said fraudulent and unlawfiil votes and included them in the 
election returns made by said election officials from said voting precinct to the 
canvassing board aforesaid and that the said fraudulent and unlawful votes 
were received, counted, and tabulated by the said board ; that all of said votes 
so illegally and fraudulently cast at said Unalakleet voting precinct at said 
election were cast for the contestant, .Tames Wickersham ; that all of said 
illegal and fraudulent votes should be excluded from, and not counted with, 
the election returns from said Unalakleet voting precinct, or that the entire 
vote of said voting precinct should be excluded, and not counted, because of the 
illegality and fraud at said voting precinct. 



That this contestee is informed and verily believes that the poll books at the 
Nizina voting precinct, in the Territory of Alaska, at the said election held 
on November 7, 1916, were wrongfully and illegally turned over by the election 
officials at said voting precinct at said election to certain campaign managers 
of .Tames Wickersham, contestant, after said election and were opened and 
held by said campaign managers for several days before they were sent to the 
canvassing board aforesaid, all in plain violation of the laws of the Territory 
of Alaska ; that this contestee avers and believes that the entire vote of said 
voting precinct at Nizina at said election should be excluded from, and not 
counted with, the returns made to the said canvassing board because of the 
illegal disposition of the said poll books as aforesaid. 

9. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that at the first voting 
pi'ecinct (or eastern precinct) in the town of Anchorage, in the Territory of 
Alaska, at the said election, held on the 7th day of November, 1916, the election 
officials permitted one Mr. Lynch, an active and partisan supporter of .Tames 
Wickersham. contestant, in the election aforesaid, and who was not an election 
official, to remain in the voting booths at said voting precinct during said elec- 
tion and consult with and advise the voters in plain violation of the laws of the 
Territory of Alaska. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 35 

% 

10. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that at Upper Cleary 
voting precinct, in the Territory of Alaska, at the said election held November 7, 
1916, the election officials unlawfully, wrongfully, and fraudulently permitted 
voters to take their ballots outside of the building where the said election was 
being held in said voting precinct, and mark them, which proceeding was in 
plain violation of the laws of the Territory of Alaska. 

11. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that the election judges 
at the Richardson voting precinct, in the Territory of Alaska, at the said elec- 
tion, held on November 7, 1916, permitted the ballot boxes containing the ballots 
cast in said voting precinct, at said election, to be taken out of their control 
and custody and unlawfully, wrongfully, and fraudulently permitted them to be 
in the possession of, and to remain in the custody of, certain persons who were 
not election officials and who were not the le^al custodians of said ballot boxes, 
and could not be, but held them in plain violation of the laws of the Territory 
of Alaska . 

12. 

That this contestee is informed and verily believes that in the second judicial 
district of the Territory of Alaska, the registration law of the Territory of 
Alaska was wholly disregarded, and voters were permitted to cast their votes at 
said election without first registering as voters, as required by said registration 
law ; that the returns of the said election show that the contestant, James Wick- 
ersham, received a comparatively better vote and larger plurality in the said 
second judicial division than in any other judicial division of the Territory of 
Alaska ; that contestant received a much larger vote at said election in the 
said second judicial division than he did in the election held in November, 1914, 
when he was a duly nominated candidate for Delegate from Alaska ; that this 
condition was brought about, this contestee is informed and verily believes, by 
illegal and fraudulent voting permitted by the election officials at said election 
held on November 7, 1916, in the various voting precincts in the said second 
judicial division of the Territory of Alaska. 

13. 

' This contestee, now having fully and completely answered the petition afore- 
said of the contestant, .James Wickersham, says that he was fairly, legally, and 
duly elected Delegate from Alaska to the Congress of the United States at the 
election aforesaid held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916 ; that he 
received the greatest number of votes at said election cast for any person or 
candidate for the said office of Delegate from Alaska ; that his majority vote 
was larger than that found and reported by the said canvassing board for 
Alaska aforesaid ; that this contestee is informed and verily believes that at 
various voting precincts in the said Territory of Alaska at said election held on 
November 7, 1916, there were illegal and fraudulent votes cast by divers persons 
•to him unknown, and that said illegal and fraudulent votes cast at said election 
were cast for James Wickersham, the contestant ; that this contestee is informed 
and verily believes that divers persons cast their votes at various precincts in 
the Territory of Alaska at the said election who were not legally qualified or 
entitled to vote, and that said votes of said divers persons were received and 
counted for James Wickersham, the contestant ; that this contestee is informed 
and verily believes that at various precincts in the said Territory of Alaska at 
said elections divers persons, to him unknown, who were legally qualified and 
entitled to vote presented themselves to the election officials at said various 
voting precincts and attempted to vote at said election and were illegally, 
wrongfully, and fraudulently prohibited and prevented from voting as aforesaid 
by said election officials nt said various voting precincts; and if these said 
divers persons had not been illegally, wrongfully, and fradulently prohibited and 
prevented from voting as aforesaid, their ballots would have been cast for this 
contestee, Charles A. Sulzer ; that this contestee is entitled to retain his seat in 
the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States as the Dele- 
gate from Alaska, to which office he was duly and illegally elected, and his said 
election duly certified by the proper officials of the Territory of Alaska, and this 



36 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

contestee prays the said House of Representatives to pass a resolution declaring^ 
that he was duly and legally elected as aforesaid and is the Delegate from 
Alaska to the Sixty-fifth Congress and is entitled to the seat therein which he 
now occupies as aforesaid. 

Dated Washington, D. C, April 9, 1917. 

Chas. a. Sulzer, Contestee. 

United States of America, 

District of Cohimbia, ss: 
Charles A. Sulzer, being duly sworn, says that he has read the foregoing; 
answer and petition by him subscribed and knows the contents thereof, and 
that the same is true as he verily believes. 

Chas. A. Sulzer. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of April, 1917. 

Sebe Newman, Notary Public. 
My commission expires September 4, 1917. 

CONTESTANTS REPLY AND ANSWER TO CROSS-PETITION IN 

CONTEST. 

Comes now James Wickersham, contestant, and makes the following reply- 
to the answer of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, in the above entitled contest. 



For reply to that part of said answer contained in paragraphs Nos. I tO' 
XXXV therein, both and all inclusive, contestant says that except as it is- 
alleged or stated in contestant's petition or reply contestant denies each and 
every allegation of new matter alleged in the contestee's answer to the said 
allegations contained in contestant's petition. 

And for reply and answer to the separate and affirmative defense set forth; 
in contestee's answer and cross-petition in the paragraphs 1 to 13 thereof,, 
both and all inclusive, this contestant says : 



Contestant denies that he has any knowledge or information sufficient to- 
enable him to form a belief of the truth of or to admit the allegations contained' 
in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of said separate and affirma- 
tive defense and cross petition, and he therefore denies each and every allegation 
therein contained 'and the whole thereof. 

II. 

For reply and answer to the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of said 
separate and affirmative defense in said answer and cross petition this con- 
testant admits and alleges that at various voting precincts in said Territory of 
Alaska, at said election held on November 7, 1916, there were illegal and 
fraudulent votes cast by divers persons to this contestant unknown, but con- 
testant denies that said illegal and fraudulent votes so cast at said election 
were cast for James Wickersham, this contestant, and alleges the truth to be 
that said illegal and fraudulent votes were cast for Charles A. Sulzer, the con- 
testee ; and this contestant alleges that said illegal and fraudulent votes were 
so cast in the precincts of Craig, Juneau No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, Kake, Ketchi- 
kan, Loring, Petersburg, and Sulzer precincts in the said first division ; in St. 
Michael No. 1 and St. Michael No. 2 precincts in said second division ; in. 
Anchorage No. 1, Bonanza, Chignik, Jumbo, Latouche, Naknek, Ninilchick, 
Ouzinkie, and Valdez in the said third division ; and in the precincts of Fort. 
Gibbon, Fairbanks, and Eagle in the fourth division ; that upon information 
and belief contentant alleges that more than 50 such, illegal and fraudulent 
votes were so cast in said precincts for said Sulzer and were so counted in the 
returns and canvassed and compiled for said Sulzer by the said canvassing- 
board ; that this contestant admits the allegations that divers and more than 
25 persons cast their votes in the above-named precincts at said election who^ 
were not legally qualified or entitled to vote, but denies that said votes, or any 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 37 

I 
of them, were received find counted for James Wickersham, this contestant, 
hut upon information and belief alleges that all of said votes were so cast for 
the said Sulzer and were returned, canvassed, and compiled for said Sulzer by 
the said returning board ; that this contestant admits and alleges that divers 
and more than 25 persons in the above-named precincts, who were legally 
qualified and entitled to vote, presented themselves to the election officials at 
said various voting precincts and attempted to vote at said election, and were 
illegally, wrongfully, and fraudulently prohibited and prevented from voting 
as aforesaid by said election officers of said precincts at said various voting 
precincts, and if these said divers persons had not been illegally, wrongfully, 
and fraudulently prohibited and prevented from voting as aforesaid their 
"ballots would have been cast for this contestant, James Wickersham ; and con- 
testant denies that any such persons were so prohibited or prevented from 
TOting for said Charles A. Sulzer, the contestee, as alleged in said paragraph, 
and this contestant denies each and every allegation in said paragraph 13, 
except as the same is admitted and alleged in this his reply thereto. 

And for a further reply and answer to the matters and things alleged in the 
contestee's separate and affirmative reply and cross petition and in paragraphs 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 thereof, this contestant alleges; 

I. 

That at the time of the said election for Delegate in Alaska so held on 
November 7, 1916, and for more than two years prior thereto Hon. Robert W. 
Jennings was the duly appointed, confirmed, and acting judge of the district 
court of Alaska, in division No. 1, thereof ; Hon. John Randolph Tucker was 
the duly appointed, confirmed, and acting juge of the district court of Alaska 
in division No. 2 thereof; Hon. Fred M. Brown was the duly appointed, con- 
firmed, and acting juge of the district court of Alaska in division No. 3 thereof ; 
and Hon. Charles E. Bunnell was the duly appointed, confirmed, and acting 
judge of the district court of Alaska in division No. 4 thereof; and there 
were none otlier ; that it is the duty of said district judges to appoint, and at 
pleasure remove, commissioners in and for the district and each of said judges 
did prior to said election so appoint a commissioner in each precinct in said 
Territory within the division in which the said judge held his said court, ana 
said judge had the power at his pleasure to remove said commissioners at any 
lime ; that under the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An act providing 
lor the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from the Territory 
of Alaska " approved May 7, 1906, and by section 5 thereof it was made the 
duty of each of said precinct commissioners at least 60 days before the date 
of said election on November 7, 1916, by order and notice entered in his records, 
to divide his recording and election district into such number of voting pre- 
cincts as may in his judgment be necessai*y or convenient, to specify a polling 
place therein, and to give notice of the holding of said election, and 

" That at least 30 days prior to the date of the holding of such election the 
commissioner shall select, notify, and appoint from among the qualified elec- 
tors in each voting precinct three judges of election for said precinct, no more 
than two of whom shall be of the same political party." 

The commissioner is required to notify such election judges of their ap- 
pointments. The said act, section 6, provides that the said judges of election of 
each voting precinct so appointed shall constitute the election board for 
said precinct, and a majority of said judges shall govern; that two of said 
judges shall act as clerks of election, and the law^ provides that one set of the 
precinct return of said election shall be forwarded by said judges of election 
to the clerk of the district court for the division in which the precinct is situ- 
ate and the other to the governor of Alaska. That in pursuance of the law 
aforesaid each of said judges of the district court had the power to and did 
appoint the said clerk of the court in the division in which he so held court. 

That in pursuance of said statutes the said district judges aforesaid had 
prior to said election so appointed each commissioner aforesaid in his respec- 
tive division, and each said commissioner did appoint the said judges of election 
as aforesaid and the returns of said election in each and all said precincts in 
Alaska were so made by said election judges to said clei-k of the court and 
governor. That the canvassing board in said Territory was composed of said 
governor, surveyor general, and collector of customs. 

That the said governor of Alaska, the surveyor general and collector of cus- 
toms, so comprising said canvassing board, the said four judges of the district 
court of Alaska, and said four clerks of court, were at all the times mentioned 



38 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

in this reply Democrats and partisans and supporters of s.aid Sulzer ; tliat in 
each precinct the said Democratic district judges appointed two Democrats 
and either a Republican or a Socialist as the three election judges and clerks 
of said election in said precincts, and thereby the whole election machinery in 
the conduct of said election of November 7, 1916, in said Territory so com- 
plained about by said Sulzer in his answer was in every detail and at every 
point controlled and managed by the friends, partisans and supporters of said 
Sulzer, and not otherwise; that neither this contestant nor his friends and sup- 
porters had any part or control in the conduct and management of said elec- 
tion ; that if there were frauds or illegal acts committed in said election as set 
forth in said Sulzer's answer they were done and performed by the said ap- 
pointed friends, partisans, and supporters of said Sulzer, for his benefit and 
not otherwise. 

Wherefore contestant prays for the relief demanded in his petition and to 
which he is by law and justice entitled. 

James Wickersham 
(In propria persona). 

United States of America, 

District of ColumMa, ss: 
James AVickersham, being first duly sworn, says that he has read the fore- 
going reply and answer to the answer and petition of said Sulzer so by him 
subscribed, knows the contents thereof and that the same is true as he verily _ 
believes. 

James Wickersham. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Mull, 

Notary Public in and for the District of ColuniM(i. 

My commission expires May 1, 1918. 

CONTESTEE'S ANSWER TO CONTESTANTS REPLY. 

Comes now Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and makes the following answer to 
the reply of James Wickersham, contestant, in above-entitled contest. 

1. 

This contestee, answering said contestant's reply, denies each and every 
allegation contained therein. 

2. 

This contestee, in further answer to contestant's said replj', states that he 
has been informed and verily believes that the persons who acted as judges of 
election at the following-named voting precincts in the Territory of Alaska were 
not SAVorn to perform the duties of their several official positions, as required 
by law, at the election held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th d;iy of Novem- 
ber, 1916, for the purpose, amongst other things, of electing a Delegate from 
the Territory of Alaska to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the 
United States : Cliff, Granite, Candle, Cape Nome, Kobuk, Koyuk, Nome No. 1, 
Nome No. 2, Nome No. 3, Chiuik, Port Clarence, Shelton, Solomon. Taylor 
Creek, Anchorage No. 2, Charcoal Point, Eagle (Juneau recording district), 
Hope, Cripple, McGrath, Bonanza (White River recording district), Kasaan ; 
and alleges that the elections at the said several precincts were illegal and 
fraudulent, and that the elections at the said several precincts were illegal and 
fraudulent, and that the election returns made from these several election pre- 
cincts named above to the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska should 
be excluded and not counted by said board. 



This contestee, further answering said reply made by the contestant, states 
that he has recently been informed and that he verily believes that at each of 
the following-named voting precincts in the Territory of Alaska at the election 
held as aforesaid one or more of the judges appointed to act at said election 
failed to take the oath as required by law : Cache Creek, Landlock, McDougall, 
Nizina, Teikel (Chitina recording precinct), Teikhell (Valdez recording dis- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 39 

% 

triot). Willow Creek, Afognak, Spruce Creek, Salchaket, Upper Cleary, AVood- 
chopper (Hot Springs recording district), Ester, Fish Creek, Lower Goldstreani, 
INIoutli of Crooked, Bettles, Deadwood, Kenai. jMeudenhall, Haines, Seldovia, 
Bonanza (White River recording precinct), and alleges that the elections so 
held at the said several precincts at said election were illegal and fraudulent, 
and that the election returns made from these said several precincts to the 
raid canvassing board should he excluded and not counted by said boai'd. 

4. 

This contestee. now having fully answered tlie allegations of the contestant 
in the a))Ove-entitled contest, asks that the House of Representatives shall grant 
the prayer in this contestee's answer to the petition of the contestant. 

Dated May 16. 1917. 

Chas. a. Sxtlzkr. 

United States of Ameeica, 

District, of Colnmhia, s.s.- 
Charles A. Sulzer, being duly sworn, said that he had read the foregoing 
answer, knows the contents thereof, that the same is true, as he verily believes. 

Chas. A. Sulzer. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of INIay, 1917, 

[seal.] D- B. Mull, Notary Public. 

ceetificate of notary public. 

United States of Ajierica, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 

I. Grover C. Winn, the notary public nnmed in the hereunto-attached notice 
to take depositions, do hereby certify that on the day and hour named in the 
notice, to wit, 10 o'clock a. m. on the 24th day of July, 1917, appeared in my 
office at Juneau, Alaska, Messrs. Hellenthal & Hellenthsil and John R. Winn, 
counsel for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee. in the contest pending before the 
House of Representatives of the United States between James Wickershani, 
contestant, and Charles A. Sulzer. contestee. and then and there also appeared 
John H. Cobb as attorney and counselor for James Wickersham, the contestant 
in said contest proceeding. That then and there counsel for the respective 
parties entered into the stipulation hereunto annexed, and thereupon proceeded 
to the examination of witnesses : whereupon AV. ^Y. Shorthill was called as a 
witness by the contestee. Avho, being first duly sworn on oath by me to tell 
the truth.' the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified in answer to 
questions- as in the hereunto attached deposition appears; and the said AV. AV. 
Shorthill having so testified, and having been examined by counsel for the con- 
testee and cross-examined by counsel for the contestant, as appears by the 
hereunto attached deposition, the said testimony was at the time the deposition 
was so taken, in the presence of the witness and in the presence of counsel for 
l)oth p'arties. reduced to writing, whereupon same was read by the witness and 
duly signed and attested by him. 

And I further certify that at the time and place named in the said notice 
hereunto attached the witness, Charles E. Davidson, Avas called by the con- 
testee, and was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, and having besn so sworn the said witness testified in 
answer to questions as appears by the hereunto attached deposition ; that 
thereupon the testimony of the said witness was, at the time the deposition was 
so taken, in the presence of the witness and in the presence of counsel for 
both parties, reduced to writing, whereupon same was read by the witness and 
duly signed and attested by him. 

That thereupon at the time and place ujentioned in said notice hereunto 
attached the witness, J. AA'. Bell, was duly called as a witness by the con- 
testee. who. being by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testified in answer to questions as appears by the here- 
unto annexed deposition, and that thereupon the testimony of the said witness 
was, at the time the deposition was so taken, in the presence of the witness and 
in the presence of counsel for both parties, reduced to writing, whereupon- the 
same was read by the witness and duly signed and attested by him. 

And I do further certify that the following pages contain the stipulation and 
the testimonv of each and all of the witnesses named, taken as above referred 
to, and that the exhibits mentioned and referred to in the testimony, and duly 



40 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

identified tlierein, are transmitted lierewitli and attaclied liereto, and so marked 
tliat tlie same can l3e readily identified. 

Testimony for contestant. 

DKPOKITION OF JAMES WICKEllSIIAM, CONTESTANT. 

Pursuant to notice filed lierein and marked " Exhibit No. 1," tlie deposition 
of James Wickersiiani was taken before D. B. Mull, Esq., a notary public in and 
for the District of Columbia, in room 160, House Office Building, Washington, 
D. C, Wednesday, May 16, 1917, at 10 o'clock a. m. 

Present : James Wickersham, contestant ; Charles A. Sulzer, contestee ; James 
T. Lloyd, attorney for contestee. 

James Wickersham, the contestant, called in his oAvn behalf, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. My name is James Wickersham. I am more than 2.5 years 
of age. I am 59 years of age. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is not material, because it is admitted in the pleading. 

Mr. Wickersham. My actual residsnce is at Fairbanks, Alaska. 

On the 9th day of April, 1917, I served notice of contest against Mr. Charles 
A. Sulzer in the matter of the contest brought by me as contestant against him 
for the office of Delegate from the Territory of Alaska, based upon the election 
held in that Territory on the 7th day of November, 1916. A copy of that notice 
of contest was served upon Mr. Sulzer. That is admitted, Mr. Lloyd? I think 
the record ought to show that Mr. Lloyd appears here for Mr. Sulzer. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes ; if it does not already show it. 

Mr. Wickersham. And I appear for myself. 

On the 9th day of May, 1917, I received a copy of Mr. Sulzer's answer and 
cross complaint, or notice, served by him upon me on that day. 

Thereafter and on the 12th day of May, 1917, I served upon Mr. Sulzer my 
leply and answer to his cross petition of contest ; and on the said 12th day of 
May I served upon Mr. Sulzer notice of taking the deposition of James Wicker- 
sham, contestant. 

Now, Mr. Lloyd, it is admitted that all these papers were served on both 
sides ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes ; so far as we are concerned. 

Mr. Wickersham. This notice of taking the deposition I will file in the rec- 
ord. It is not verified by the party who served it. (Marked " Exhibit No. 1." 
and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. That is all right. • 

Mr. Wickersham. 1"ou do not object to that? 

Mr. Lloyd. Y'ou can say that all informalities are waived by contestee's 
attorney. 

Mr. Wickersham. I file with the 

Mr. Lloyd (interposing). Right at that juncture, your answer to him can be 
inserted later, because it has not come in yet. 

Mr. Wickersham. I file with the notary public herein and ask to have it 
attached to my deposition, so that it may go to the Clerk of the House of Rep- 
resentatives and to the House and may be referred to the proper committee, 
the original of my notice of contest, dated the 10th of April, 1917, signed by 
me and verified by me. and also on the last page, before Mr. D. B. Mull, notary 
public. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is that paper? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAii. This is the original notice of contest. I imderstand that 
has to go with the deposition to the Clerk of the House. Is that your under- 
standing of it? I do not file it as a part of the deposition. I merely file it 
and ask that it go with the deposition. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know what the practice is. 

Mr. Lloyd. The practice is that they are not mentioned in connection with 
the depositioiL because you will have a whole lot of depositions. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not offering it as a part of the deposition. 

Mr. Lloyd. It then goes with the paper? 

IMr. Wickersham. It just goes with the paper. Now, this deposition is being 
taken here, and it is proper to have it go with the deposition. 



WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 41 

Mr. Lloyd. Here is anotlier tiling about it. There is one reason for not 
doing that. Yon are entitled to hold it in your possession until the papers are 
tiled, and this deposition 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM (Interposiug) . It has to go to the Clerk. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes ; it goes to the Clerk. 

Mr. WicKEESHAit. I know that. 

Mr. Lloyd. So that it is just as well not to have it go in the deposition. 
Y'ou can hold it. 

Mr. WicKEKSHAM. I do not offer it as a part of my deposition. 

Mr. Lloyd. But to go with the papers. 

IMr. WicKEKSHAM. Very well. Then I will not offer it, even to go with the 
deposition. I will file it with the Clerk at the proper time. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes : I think you will find that more satisfactory to yourself. 

Mr. WicKERSHAsi. I do not know what the prevailing practice is- before the 
Committees on Elections in contested election cases before the House of Repre- 
sentatives with respect to taking judicial notice of the acts of Congress gov- 
erning such cases or questions arising in them, and for fear that there might 
be some question about it I want to call the special attention of the committee 
and the House to the act of Congress of May 7, 1906. l>eing in 34 Statutes at 
Large, page 169, which is an act providing for the election of a Delegate to 
Congress from the Territory of Alaska. I want that particular act noted in 
connection with this case. 

I also call attention in the same way to the act of Congress of August 24, 
1912. being an act creating the Territorial Legislature of the Territory of 
Alaska, conferring judicial powers thereon, and for other ptirposes, which will 
be found in 37 Statutes at Large, beginning at page 512. 

On the 7th day of November, 1916, an election was held in the Territory of 
Alaska for the election of a Delegate from that Territory to Congress, and I 
was one of the candidates at that election ; Mr. Charles A. Sulzer was another 
one of the candidates ; and Mrs. Lena Morrow Lewis was the third candidate. 

At that election James Wickersham, the contestant in this case, received 6,490 
votes, according to the final canvass and the compilation of rettirns made by 
the Territorial Canvassing Board ; Mr. Charles A. Sulzer received 6,459 votes ; 
and Mrs. Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes. 

The canvassing board of the Territory of Alaska was at that time composed 
of the governor, J. F. A. Strong ; the surveyor general, Charles E. Davidson ; 
and the collector of ctistoms, John F. Pugh. These three exectitive officers of 
the Territory of Alaska are made the canvassing board by the act of Congress 
of May 7, 1906, providing for the election of a Delegate from the Territory of 
Alaska, and their powers are extended by the act of Congress of August 24. 
1912. creating the Territorial Legislature, so as to include within their duties 
that of canvassing and compiling the votes and returns for members of the 
Territorial Legislature. 

The canvassing board of the Territory of Alaska met in the governor's office 
at Juneau, Alaska, on January 19, 1917, and proceeded thereafter from time to 
time to canvass and compile the election returns of that election, until on 
March 1, 1917, they had completed the canvass of the votes and had by a 
formal declaration in their minutes declared this contestant to be elected. 

I now offer in evidence in this case, and ask to have attached to my depo- 
sition, a full, true, and correct copy of the mintttes of the said canvassing board 
of the Territory of Alaska, certified to under the hands and seals of the gover- 
nor of Alaska, the collector of customs of Alaska, and the surveyor general of 
Alaska, together with the great seal of the Territory attached thereto. 

IMr. Llo'yd. Contestee objects to the introduction on the ground that it is 
im^iaterial. 

(The paper referred to is marked "Exhibit No. 2" and attached hereto.) 

Mr. Wickersham. Thereafter and on March 2, 1917, Mr. Charles A. Sulzer 
began a suit in the district court of the district of Alaska, at Juneau, Alaska, 
entitled : 

" The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles 
A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory t»i 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
defendants." 

being No. 1593-A in the said district court for the District of Alaska, division 
No. 1, and filed his petition in said suit in said court on the said 2d day of 
March, 1917. 



42 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Thereupon and on the sume day the judge of the said court issued an alterna- 
tive writ of mandamus in the said suit directed to the canvassing board order- 
ing the canvassing board to— — 

Mr. Lloyd. Judge, are you making those statements on your own Ivuowledge? 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. No. T am making tliem ft-om the record, merely to call 
attention to the record, ordering the canvassing board to : 

" Reject and do not count the returns and the votes received and transmitted 
to you from the following precincts, to wit : 

Choggiung : 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deer in g: 

For James Wickersham ^ 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For .Tames Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham . 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafleld : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

" and that you issue a certificate of election of Charles A. Sulzer, the relator 
herein, certifying that he has been duty elected as a Delegate to Congress for 
the Territory of Alaska, at the election held on November 7, 1916, and that you, 
and e;ich of you, return this writ with your certificate, and the certificate of 
each of you annexed, of having done as you are herein commanded, or the cause 
of your omission thereof, on the 3d day of March, 1917," etc. 

Theieafter and about March 7, 1917, a stipulation was entered into between 
the attorneys for the relator and the three members of the canvassing board 
settling the pleadings. 

Thereafter and on March 6, 1917, a separate answer was filed by John F. 
Pugh, one of the members of the canvassing board ; and on the same day a 
separate answer was filed by Gov. Strong and Surveyer General Davidson as 
members of the said board in said cause. 

Thei-eafter the governor and the surveyor general, in addition to the facts 
set forth in their original answer to the alternative writ, filed a document in 
the said court setting up that a protest had been made to the board by Emery 
Valentine on the 21st of March, 1917. 

That protest and their further answer were filed by the governor and the 
secretary of the Territory, with the request that the court instruct them what 
disposition to make of the protest. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is objected to on the ground that it is immaterial as testi- 
mony and has no bearing whatever upon the issues in this case. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAjr. Thereaftei- and on March 22, 1917. the judge of that court, 
the Hon. Robert W. Jennings, wrote a letter to the governor and the surveyor 
general, dated March 22. 1917, in which he acknowledged the filing of the said 
documents in the record, but gave them no instruction in relation to the matter. 

These letters and a reply thereafter made by the governor and the surveyor 
general to the judge's letter, are all in the record which I will now file. 

Mr. Lloyd. I make the same objection. 

Mr. Wickersham. Thereafter and on the 23d day of March, 1917, the judge 
issued a peremptory writ of mandamus against the members of the canvassing 
board, in which he set out in full the complaint of the relator, Charles A. 
Sulzer; and following that, issued his peremptory writ, which concluded as 
follows : 

" Therefore, this is to command you and each of you, that upon receipt of 
this writ of mandamus you do forthwith convene as a canvassing board for 
the Territory of Alaska, and that you reject the votes from the said precincts 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 43 

of Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifielcl, and Vault, and that you 
issue a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the 
greatest number of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that said 
certificate be in the usual form, as by law provided. 

" And this you are in nowise to omit. 

" Given under my hand and the seal of tliis court this 23d day of March, 1917. 

Robert W. Jennings, Judge." 

With the seal of the court attached. 

The attention of the committee is called to the fact tliat the words " usual 
form " in this mandate are underscored in the original copy. 

I have called attention to the fact that the governor and the surveyor 
general answered Judge Jennings's letter by a letter dated by them March 23, 
1917, and I now introduce all these documents in evidence in this case and 
ask that they be attached to my deposition as a part of it. They are properly 
certified by the clerk of the district court for the district of Alaska, division 
No. 1, at Juneau. 

Have you any objection to make to them? 

Mr. Lloyd. Just the formal ob.iection — immaterial and not responsive to the 
issue in this case. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. This is a certified copy of the record in the district court 
for the district of Alaska, in the case of Sulzer v. Canvassing Board. 

(The record referred to is marked Exhibit No. 3, and attached hereto.) 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I was not made a party to the suit of Sulzer v. Canvassing 
Board in the district court of the Territory of Alaska, and was not given any 
notice or served with any subpoena or summons of any kind, and had no 
knowledge or information respecting it, except such as I gathered from the 
newspapers or letters coming to me from people in Alaska. 

At that time I was in the city of Washington attending to my duties as a 
Delegate from the Territory of Alaska, and more than three thousand miles 
away from the place where the suit was brought. 

Judge Jennings and Mr. John F. Pugh are bothers-in-law. I think that is 
admitted, however, in the answer? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Four years ago, in 1912, Judge Jennings was a candidate 
for Delegate from Alaska 

Mr. Lloyd. We have no objection to that, but it is not material. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM (continuing). Against me, and has been one of my violent 
personal opponents ever since. 

I now ask to file in this case my reply and answer to the reply and answer of 
Mr. Sulzer in this case, signed by me and sworn to before Mr. Mull on the 
.12th of May, 1917. I suppose. Mr. Lloyd, that might take the same course 
as my original notice of contest. 

Mr. Lloyd. I think so ; yes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. All these pleadings may be just filed with the clerk and 
not necessarily with the stenographer. 

Mr. Lloyd. All right. That is the practice in other cases. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Now, I have filed in this case the notice of taking the 
deposition of the contestant, James Wickersham, served on Mr. Sulzer May 
12, 1917. I want that to go in the record. There is no proof of service on 
here, Mr. Lloyd. 

Mr. Lloyd. We admit that it was served. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. You admit that it was served on the 12th of May, 1917? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I uow ofCer in evidence a certified copy of the election 
returns from the precinct of Chogiung, in the Bristol Bay recording district, 
Territory of Alaska, the certificate being signed by the governor of Alaska 
and the secretary of the Territory, with the seal of the Territory attached. I 
ask to have it marked " Exhibit No. 4," and ofEer it to counsel for the con- 
testee for examination. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 4 " and attached hereto.) 

Mr WiCKERSHAM. I also ofeer in evidence and "ask to have marked as an 
exhibit a certified copy of the election returns from the Nushagak voting pre- 
cinct in the Bristol Bay recording district, third division. Territory of Alaska, 
properly certified. 

Mr. Lloyd. Just the same form as the other ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Just the same form as the other exactly. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 5 " and hereto attached.) 



44 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

I nlso offer in evidence and ask to liave marlved as an exliibit. as a part of 
my deposition, a certified copy of the election returns from tlie Deering 
precinct, second division, in tlie Territory of Alaska, and also certified by tlie 
governor and secretary of the Territory of Alaska as a full, true, and correct 
copy. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 6 " and hereto attached.) 

I also offer in evidence and ask to have attached to and made a part of my 
deposition a certified copy of the duplicate certificate of the result of the gen- 
eral election in the Utica voting precinct, Fairhaven recording district, second 
division. Territory of Alaska, properly certified to by the governor and surveyor 
general of Alaska. 

(The paper referred to is marked "Exhibit No. 7" and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. Judge, what do you understand is meant by " duplicate cer- 
tificate"? 

Mr. WicKEKSHAM. When the judges of the election make up their final tally 
the night after the election is finished they make tv^o copies of the returns. 
One copy is sent to the governor of the Territory of Alaska and the other is 
sent to the clerk of the district court in the division in which the election 
precinct is located. If the return coming to the governor of Alaska is not 
complete or does not arrive, the governor may call upon the clerk for a certified 
copy of the duplicate certificate in his possession, and the statute requires that 
to be used in place of the original, which the law authorizes to be sent to the 
governor in the first place, if it does not reach him or if it is irregular. This 
is a certified copy of the duplicate in the hands of the clerk of the court. 

I also offer in evidence and ask to have attached to and made a part of my 
deposition a certified copy of the election returns from the Bonnifield voting pre- 
cinct in the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, Territory of Alaska, 
properly certified by the governor and the secretary of the Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is not a duplicate? 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. No ; that is a copy of the original. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 8 " and hereto attached.) 

I now offer in evidence and ask to have attached to and made a part of my 
deposition a certified copy of the duplicate election returns from the Vault 
voting precinct in the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division. Territory of 
Alaska, properly certified to by the clerk of the court and by the governor and 
secretary of the Territory. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 9 " and hereto attached.) 

I also offer in evidence another copy of the Vault precinct election returns, 
being a certified copy of the original filed in the office of the clerk of the district 
court of Alaska, at Fairbanks, Alaska, in the fourth division, being the division in 
which the Vault precinct is located. 

The one, Mr. Lloyd, is a certified copy from the governor's office, and the other 
is from the clerk's office. One is a duplicate and the other is a certified copy of 
the original. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 10 " and hereto attached.) 

I now offer in evidence and ask to have made a part of my deposition and 
filed as an exhibit a certified copy of the election returns and list of persons who 
signed challenge-oath forms in the Fort Gibbon voting precinct, in the Fort Gib- 
bon recording district, fourth jndicial division. Territory of Alaska, at the gen- 
eral election of November 7. 1916. This certified copy is certified to by the 
governor and the surveyor general of Alaska, with the gi*eat seal of the Terri- 
tory attached. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 11 "' and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. That is objected to because no certificate with reference to the list 
of challenges is signed by the judges, and there is nothing here to indicate that 
the names given were challenged according to law, and because the statement 
is improper and immaterial to the issues. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The town of Tanana is located at the mouth of the Tanana 
River where it empties into the Yukon, and on the north bank of the Yukon, 
opposite the mouth of the Tanana, there is a United States military post situ- 
ated adjoining the town. The military post is named Fort Gibbon and is located 
upon a military reservation. The military reservation and the town are side by 
side, the town not being on the reservation, but on the adjoining tract. 

At the election held in Alaska for the election of a Delegate on November 7, 
1916, and prior thereto, a precinct was cut off and named Fort Gibbon precinct, 
which included the military post, and there were a large number of soldiers 
stationed there who voted at that election. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 45 

Mr. Lloyd. Xow, just at that point : Have you personal knowledge of their 
voting ? 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. I havo the proof here. 

Mr. Lloyd. I beg your pardon. I asked you if you had personal knowledge of 
their voting. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. I was not there and did not see them vote ; no. There were 
33 soldiers who voted at that election in the Fort Gibbon precinct. 

Mr. Lloyd. How do you know it? 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Their names are on the list of challenged voters an J each 
of them took the oath and voted, according to this record. 

Mr. Lloyd. AVas each of the 33 a soldier? 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you know that personally? 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. No. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there anything in that statement to show that they were 
soldiers? 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Well, the statement is there. You can see that as well as 
I can. 

Mr. Lloyd. I appreciate that the statement is there, but there is nothing in 
that statement that shows that they were soldiers. 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Very well. I now offer in evidence a certificate made and 
signed by Henry P. McCain, brigadier general. United States Army, being The 
Adjutant General of the Army in charge of the office here in the city of Wash- 
ington in the War Department, the certificate attached thereto being signed by 
the Secretary of War, by John C. Scofield, his assistant and chief clerk, and 
to which the great seal of the War Department is attached, giving the names 
of these 33 persons, these 33 soldiers who voted in the Fort Gibbon precinct, 
together with the dates of their enlistment and service, as shown in the cer- 
tificate. 

Each of these persons is named in the certified copy of the returns from the 
Fort Gibbon precinct as being one of the challenged voters at that precinct. 

I offer this certificate in evidence and ask to have it attached to my deposition 
and made a part thereof. You will find the list of challenged voters, Mr. Lloyd, 
contains those names. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 12 " and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. Objected to on the ground that it is not responsive to the issues 
in this contest, and does not show, either directly or indirectly, whether the indi- 
viduals named were entitled to vote. 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. I call your attention, Mr. Lloyd, to the fact that one of 
these names here is not shown to be a soldier. 

Mr. Lloyd. Did he reenlist? 

Mr. W^iCKERSHAM. No. At the end of this certificate The Adjutant General 
says : 

"And that I have found no record showing that any man bearing the name 
Clarence Hefrom has been in any Army organization that was stationed at Fort 
Gibbon. Alaska, on November 7, 1916, or enlisted in the Regular Army within the 
last eight years." 

Either he was not a soldier or we got his name wrong. I do not know which. 

Mr. Lloyd. All right. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. I uow offor a letter froixi the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, dated April 16, 1917, written to me in answer to my telegram asking 
for these certified copies of the names of the soldiers who voted at Port Gibbon. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 13 " and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. This letter is immaterial, but contestee does not object to its 
introduction. 

Mr. WICKEESHAM. It reads : 

" Teeritory of Alaska, 

" Goveenoe's Office, 
"Juneau, April 16, 1917. 
" Hon. James Wickeesham, 

" Congress Hall, Washington. D. C. 

" Dear Sie : Inclosed herewith you will find a certified copy of the election 
register of the Fort Gibbon voting precinct, together with a list of the names of 
persons who signed challenge oaths, and a copy of the form of challenge oath 
used, a'^ contained in the original returns received by this office from the judges 
of election at the Fort Gibbon voting precinct. 



46 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

"These certified documents are forwarded in response to the request con- 
tained in your telegram of the 14th instant, reading as follows : 

Please forward by mail certified record names parties voting Fort Gibbon 
precincts who were challenged and swore in vote. Understand they are sol- 
diers. Want information War Department. Send any information showing 
they are soldiers.' 

" While I have been unofficially advised that the persons who swore in their 
votes in the Fort Gibbon voting precinct were soldiers from the fort, there is 
nothing in the records of the election board showing that such was the case 
In fact, aside from the challenge oaths, the returns contained no record what- 
ever of the matter. 

" Faithfully yours. 

" J. F. A. Stkong, Governor." 

There were 50 votes cast in the Fort Gibbon precinct on the 7th day of 
November, 1916, for Delegate from Alaska, of which I received but 9 votes. 

Some time ago I received notice from one of my friends at Eagle City that the 
four Signal Corps men located at Eagle City had voted at that election and 
had voted against me, for Mr. Sulzer. 

On May 12 I sent the following telegram to Mr. U. G. Myers, a prominent 
citizen there: 

" Washington, D. C, May 12, 1911. 
" U. G. Myees. Eagle, Alaska: 

" Have personal interview with each soldier who voted November 7 last at 
Eagle, and ask each if he voted for Charles A. Sulzer. Send me night letter 
giving full name and answer " Yes " or " No." Show this telegram to each 
soldier and ask him to answer fairly. 

" James Wickeksham." 

(The telegram referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 14 " and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. We object to the nitroduction of the telegram. 

Mr. Wickersham. I received this reply to that telegram : 

" Eagle, Alaska " 

Mr. Lloyd. W^e object to the reply thereto because the statement of what he 
may have done is not legally answered by a telegram. 

Mr. Wickersham. The reply is as follows : 

" Eagle, Alaska, May 14, 1917. 
" Hon. James Wickersham, 

"Washington, D. C: 

" Compliance with your night letter, Barney R. Peppersack, Squire Lowry, 
and Charles B. Murphy answer ' Yes.' James S. McDowell declines answer. 

" U. G. Myers." 

(The telegram referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 15 " and hereto attached.) 

I asked the War Department to give me the record of these four men — 
Barney R. Peppersack. Squire Lowry, Charles P. Murphy, and James S. Mc- 
Dowell — and I now offer in evidence a certificate, signed by The Adjutant 
General, and certified to by the War Department, showing that each one of 
those four men was, on November 7, 1916, the day he voted at Eagle City, 
Alaska, a soldier in the Army of the United States. 

(The paper referred to is marked "Exhibit No. 16" and hereto attached.) 

And I also ofCer in evidence these two telegrams and ask to have them 
marked as exhibits and attached to my deposition. 

(The telegrams referred to have already been marked "Exhibits Nos. 14 and 
15" and hereto attached.) 

I also offer in evidence a letter from Gov. Strong, dated December 29, 1916, 
and I show it to Mr. Lloyd before I read it. 

Mr. Lloyd. That letter is not material, but we do not object to its introduc- 
tion. 

Mr. Wickersham. I offer it because of the fact that it gave me notice of the 
meeting of the canvassing board. 

Mr. Lloyd. I suppose that is it. 

(The letter refen-ed to is marked " Exhibit No. 17 " and hereto attached.) 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 47 

* 

Mr. WiCKEKSHAM. I ask to read it : 

" Teeeitoky of Alaska, Goveenoe's Office, 

" Jiineau, December 29, 1916. 
'■ Hon. James Wickeesham, 

" Delegate from. Alaska, Washington, D. C. 
" Deae Sie: According to an opinion of the counsel for the Territory, made 
at tlie request of tliis office, tlie canvassing board must meet not earlier than 
January 7 next, nor later than January 16 next, for the purpose of canvassing 
the vote cast at the election of November 7 last. The board, therefore, will not 
meet earlier than January 16. You, as one of the candidates for Delegate, may 
desire to be represented at such meeting or meetings by counsel. 
" I am, yours, very truly, 

" J. F. A. Strong. 
" Governor, Member of Canvassing Board." 

Immediately upon receiving that notice from the governor I telegraphed him 
as follows : 

" Washington, D. C, January 15, 1917. 
" Gov. J. F. A. Strong, 

"Member Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska: 
" Letter received. Section 5, article 1, Constitution United States, provides 
each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its 
own Members. The Alaska canvassing board has no authority under act 
creating it to do more than tabulate returns, canvass, and compile in writing, 
and issue certificate to candidate having the greatest number of votes for Dele- 
gate on the face of the returns. Any contest or trial must be begun before the 
Hou.se of Representatives. See Hinds' Precedents, volume 1, section 423. 
Please give copy to Emory Valentine. 

" James Wickersham. 

"Delegate from Alaska. 
" Official business. 

" James Wickersham, 

" Delegate from Alaska." 

I offer this telegram in evidence and ask that it be marked as an exhibit 
and attached to my deposition. 

(The telegram referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 18" and hereto attached.) 

Mr. Lloyd. Objected to as improper and immaterial. 

Mr. A\'iCKERSHAM. Ou the S'lme day I wrote to the governor a letter as 
follows : 

"Washington, D. C. January 1o, 1911. 
" Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

" Governor of Alaska. Juneau, Alaska. 

" My Deae Goveenoe : I have your letter of December 29. which reached my 
office this date, advising me that'll was the purpose of the canvassing board to 
compile the returns and declare rhe result of the delegate election not earlier 
than to-morrow. Since I could not avail myself of an answer in writing I have 
this day sent you a telegram as follows: 

" ' Washington, D. C, January 15. 1917. 
" ' (Jov. .T. F. A. Steong, 

"' Member Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska: 
"^Letter received. Section 5, Article I. Constitution United States, provides 
each House shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its 
)wn Members. The Alaska canvassing board has no authority under act cre- 
ating it to do more than tabulate returns, canvass, and compile in writing and 
issue certificate to candidate having tlie greatest number of votes for Delegate 
on the face of the returns. Any contest or trial must be begun before the 
House of Representatives. See Hinds Precedents, volume 1, section 423. Please 
give copy to Emory Valentine.' 
" Respectfully, 

" James Wickeesham." 

(The letter referred to is marked "Exhibit No. 19" and hereto attached.) 
I call attention of counsel to the fact that this notice from the governor of 
the meeting of the canvassing board on January 16 was received by me in 
Washington, D. C, on January 15, and did not give me any time to get to 



48 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Juneau, Alaska. 3.000 miles away, if I liad desired to do so. However, at that 
time I was in attentlance upon Congress as the Delegate from Alaska, and 
Congress did not adjourn until March 4, and public bu.siness kept me from 
going there. 

On January 18 Gov. Strong, at Juneau, Alaska, wrote me a letter in answer 
to my telegram of the loth, and I offer it in evidence. 

Mr. Lloyd. Objected to as immaterial. 

(The letter referred to is marked "Exhibit No. 20" and liereto attached.) 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. The governor's letter of January 18 reads as follows : 

" Teekitoey of Alaska, 

" Governoe's Office, 
" Juneau, January 18, 1911. 
" Hon. James Wickeesham, 

" Delegate to Congress, Washingto^i, D. C. 
" Dear Sir : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of January 15, 
with reference to the duties of the canvassing board. 

" In reply I have to advise you that these duties were, I think, fairly well 
understood by the canvassing board, and it was not the intention of the board to 
go behind the election returns. The notification sent you was formal and 
merely an act of courtesy, an identical notification having been sent to Mr. 
Sulzer. The board will not meet until Friday, the 19th instant, owing to the 
absence of Mr. Pugh, collector of customs, who has been absent from the Terri- 
tory for some time. I believe that all of the election returns have been received 
except those from Bristol Bay and a few precincts on the Alaska Peninsula, and 
cnese, I understand, reached Seward last Saturday and should arrive herti 
within a few clays. 

"A copy of your telegram was forwarded to Mr. Valentine as per your request. 
" Yours, very truly, 

" J. F. A. Strong, Governor." 

I ask that this be filed and attached to my deposition as an exhibit. 

I now offer in evidence a certified copy of the certificate of the judges from 
the Utica and Deering precincts, showing why the so-called territorial or official 
ballots were not used in those precincts. I ask to have it marked as an exhibit, 
attached to my deposition and made a part thereof. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 21 " and hereto attached.) 

I also now offer in evidence a certificate of the Postmaster General of the 
United States showing the reason why the so-called territorial or official ballots 
were not us6d at Choggiung and Nushagak precincts in the third division in- 
stead of the congressional form of ballots, the reason being that the mails did 
not run. I ask to have this certificate marked as an exhibit, attached to my 
deposition, and made a part thereof. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 22 " and hereto attached.) 

With regard to the voting of the soldiers at Fort Gibbon precinct, I was in- 
formed before the election that the Fort Gibbon precinct had been set apart so^ 
that they might be voted and so that they would not have to go to the town of 
Tanana and vote. I was notified by telegraph of the fact on the day of the elec- 
tion, or the day before, and it is a notorious fact that the soldiers in Alaska at 
this last campaign, almost without exception, voted against me and for Mr. 
Sulzer. I say that not because I saw any of them vote, but upon general in- 
formation and notice coming to me from many different quarters of such notor- 
ious character as to be public in the Territory. 

I believe that is all. 

Mr. Lloyd. Now, with reference to the soldiers' vote, is it not true that the 
soldiers in other campaigns have voted for you? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not your information that they voted for you? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. No. I have no information on the subject. I do not know 
that it was ever mentioned before. I received a telegram, Mr. Lloyd, just before 
the election asking me if soldiers could vote from Fort Gibbon and I said no, 
not without they were actual, bona fide residents in the Territory prior to theil- 
enlistment. 

Mr. Lloyd. Did you give authority to anyone to appear before the canvassing 
board? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I did not. Nobody appeared for me at all, 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you know Mr. Russell who lives up there? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 49 

Mr. Lloyd. In the stuteuient whicli you have filed I notice that he says: "I 
have in my letter file authority from Mr. Wickersham to represent him before 
this canvassing board and to employ a lawyer if necessary." 

Mr. AVi( KERSH.\M. I do not think he had any authority to employ a lawyer. 
Here is what happened. Before I left there I said : " Mr. Russell, you look out 
for things here and attend the meeting of the canvassing board and see that 
nothing goes wrong," or something of that nature ; but that was sdl. He was 
not employed by me. 

Mr. Lloyd. Well, he had a letter to that effect, did he not? 

Mr. WiCKp:iiSHAM. I do not know that he had. I do not remember any such 
letter. It is possible that he did ; but it was about that substance. 

Mr. Lloy'd. He says : " He also wrote that it would be unnecessary to embar- 
rass the board in any way ; that he had every confidence in the integrity and 
honesty of the canvassing board, and for that reason he did not-want to appear- 
before them or embarras them." 

Mr. WiCKEBSHAM. I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind. I 
certainly felt that way, although I do not know that I said that to him. 

Mr. Lloy'd. He said that you wrote that. 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. I Certainly felt that way. I had every confidence in the 
members of the canvassing board, all of theuL 

Mr. Lloyd. Is that all? 

Mr. WicKEKSHAM. Yes. There is one other thing along that line that I want 
to say : That the entire election machinery in the Territory of Alaska was in 
the hands of my opponents. The law provides that the judge of the district 
court in Alaska shall appoint the commissioners in the various precincts in the 
Territory of Alaska, and it then provides that the commissioners in the various 
precincts shall appoint all of the election .ludges. Three election judges are 
appointed in each voting precinct, and t\\o of those judges act as clerks of elec- 
tion. So that there are, as I understand it, in practice but three men appointed 
in each voting precinct, and those are all appointed by the commissioners in the 
recording precincts. 

Mr. Lloyd. But not more than two of them shall be of the same political 
party. 

Mr. Wickersham. Not more than two of them shall be of the same political 
party ; and the judges appoint the commissioners and the commissioners ap- 
pohit the election officers. Now, the President of the United States appoints 
the judges, and we have four judges in Alaska — .Judge Tucker, at Nome; Judge 
Bunnell, who ran against me two years ago for Delegate, at Fairbanks ; Judge 
Brown, at Valdez ; and Judge Jennings, who ran against me four years ago for 
Delegate, at Juneau. Now, those four judges appoint each commissioner, and 
the commissioners appoint all the election officers, so that the whole election 
machinery of Alaska was in the hands of my opponents. Now, the canvassing 
board consists of the governor, the surveyor general, and the collector of cus- 
toms, all three being Democrats appointed by the President, so that from top to 
bottom everything was in the hands of the friends of Mr. Sulzer. I am not 
complaining about it, but I am just mentioning that fact. 

Mr. Lloyd. You do not claim that you suffered because of that fact? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, undoubtedly ; yes. 

Mr. Lloy'd. You have been one of the judges of the Territory of Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Lloyd. You would not reflect upon the integrity of the courts, would you ? ■ 

Mr. WiCKERSHAir. Ordinarily, no. I do not think there is any question but 
what Judge Tucker at Nome, or Judge Brown at Valdez, would have been per- 
fectly fair about a thing of that kind; l>ut Judge Bunnell and Judge Jennings 
are very bitter partisans, both of them ; and both of them having run against 
me once are more keenly so than they otherwise would be. I do not mean any- 
thing criminal or anything of that kind, but they are just 

Mr. Lloyd. I'ou do not charge that the election judges who would pass upon 
these matters were not divided as the law directs? 

Mr. AVicKERSHAM. No ; I think they were. But you nuist remember that T 
was not nominated as a Republican from Alaska at all. I never have been. 
The Republican organization up there, headed by Mr. Shackleford, always 
opposed me. and they did this time. They supported Mr. Sulzer. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that there were a number of other officers voted on 
at the same time? 

Mr. AVicKERSHAM. Oh, yes. 

13289—17 4 



50 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Mr. Lloyd. And that the election judges were, as a rule, Republican judges? 
T mean, the minority representation was ordinarily Republican. 

Mr. WiCKEKSHAM. Well, if they were, they were not of those who were 
known to be my friends. They were of the opposing faction. They were either 
Mr. Shackleford's Republicans or they were Socialists ; and I am not reflecting 
on them at all by saying that. 

Mr. Lloyd. Well, I see nothing especially unfair in that. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I am just saying that none of my friends had any control 
of the election machinery. 

Mr. Lloyd. You do not allege that Mr. Sulzer had control of the election 
machinery ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I allege that his friends had. 

Mr. Lloyd. You mean that the Democrats had? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Well, his particular friends among the Democrats had ; yes. 

Mr. SuLZER. Do you think that the United States commissioners in the 
lirst district were appointed with any view to their action in the election 
matter ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Oh, I do not think Judge Jennings would appoint anybody 
to any office who did not do what he thought ought to be done at election time. 

Mr. SuLZER. Do you think that all the commissioners in the first division 
are Democrats? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. No. 

Mr. Sulzer. Do you know how many commissioners Judge Jennings has 
appointed in the first district at the last election? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. He has either appointed all of them or approved all of 
them since he has been in office. 

Mr. SuLZER. Do you know the politics of the United States commissioner at 
Ketchikan or Wrangell or Sitka? 

Mr. W^iCKERSHAM. No ; I do not. 

Mr. SuLZER. Or of the various other precincts? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I havc given the matter no attention, except that I know 
they are not friendly to me, because they would not hold their offices under 
.Judge Jennhigs if they were. 

Mr. SuLZER. Do you think that Judge Thomas, the United States commis- 
sioner at Wrangell, is not friendly to you? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I think Judge Thomas is not politically friendly toward me. 

Mr. SuLZER. Do you think he opposed you in the last election? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do. I have no doubt of it, although I have no positive 
proof of it one way or the other. 

Mr. Sulzer. Do you think that Judge De Armond, the United States com- 
missioner at Sitka, Alaska, is unfriendly and opposed you in the last election? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I think so ; because if he had not been he would have 
been removed in three days after the news reached Juneau. Judge Jennings 
would have removed him. 

Mr. Sulzer. You think Judge Jennings would have removed him? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do ; yes. I think he is so partisan as that. 

Mr. Sulzer. Do you have any information to the effect that Judge Stackpole, 
at Ketchikan, is a Democrat and friendly toward the Democrats? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Oh, there are some of those people who are Republicans, 
Mr. Sulzer, but you must remember that the Shackleford Republicans all sup- 
ported you. They worked with Judge Jennings and with your friends. 

Mr. Sulzer. Well, I do not admit any such statement as that. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. You will admit that Mr. Shackleford supported you 
publicly ? 

Mr. Sulzer. Shackleford was not in the Territory of Alaska at that time or 
at any time previous to that. I do not know anything whatever regarding 
Mr. Shackleford or his organization, so far as that is concerned, but I wanted 
to get at how familiar you were with the politics of the commissioners of the 
Territory, in order to substantiate the statement that you made that all the 
election machinery was in the control of the Democratic Party and favorable to 
me. I do not admit any such condition as that whatever. I do not think that 
is the case. As a matter of fact, I do not think the commissioners influenced 
the matter one way or the other. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Well, I certainly do. 

Mr. Sulzer. I think you had just as much advantage in that regard as I had. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I Certainly did not. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 51 

Mr. Lloyd. Judge, if there is anytliing you want to straighten out about 
this matter you can call on me at my office. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. All right. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are you willing, for my information, that I might see this paper, 
the minutes of the canvassing board? (Exhibit No. 2.) 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. I am willing, of course, but I do not want it to go out of 
the hands of the proper officials. 

Mr. Lloyd. Not out of my hands? 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. Not out of the hands of the proper officials. I want it to 
get safely into the hands of the clerk. 

Mr. Lloyd. Certainly, but I did not want to ask him for it without your 
consent. If you will consent that I may have it until to-morrow, I will return 
it to-morrow morning. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. That is, the minutes of the canvassing board? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. The certified copy of the minutes of the canvassing board? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. I wlll agree that that will go into your possession. 

Mr. Lloyd. In my individual possession. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. Ycs ; and to-morrow it must be attached to the original 
deposition. 

Mr. Lloyd. I will send it back by my son at 11.30 to Mr. Mull's office in the 
guard room. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. Before the record is closed, I offer in evidence and ask to 
have marked as an exhibit and attached to my deposition, a carbon copy of the 
entire canvass and compilation of all the returns in the Territory of Alaska 
made by the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska at Juneau, for the 
November 7, 1916, election. 

(The paper referred to is marked " Exhibit No. 23," and hereto attached.) 

James Wickeesham. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of May, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. B. Mull, 

Notary Public in and, for the District of Colurribia. 

My commission expires May 1, 1918. 

Exhibit No. 1. 5/16/17. 

NOTICE OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF JAMES WICKEESHAM, CONTESTANT. 

To Chaeles a. Sulzee, contestee in the above proceeding : 

You are hereby notified that the contestant herein will take the deposition of 
James Wickersham, whose present place of residence is at Congress Hall Hotel, 
Washington, D. C, as a witness for contestant in the above-entitled contest, be- 
fore Hon. D. B. Mull, a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, in 
room No. 160, in the House Office Building, in Washington, D. C, beginning at 
the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon on Wednesday, May 16, 1917, and from 
day to day thereafter until the same is completed, and will at that time and 
place offer in evidence as a part of the testimony of said James Wickersham a 
full, true, and correct copy of all the pleadings and papers filed in the district 
court of Alaska, first division, in the case of Sulzer v. The Canvassing Board, 
being cause No. 1593-A, in said court, together with the final judgment and per- 
emptory writ of mandamus therein, all being duly certified to as a full, true, 
and correct copy of said record by the clerk of said court, under his hand and 
the seal of said court ; and he will also at said time and place so offer in evi- 
dence in said contest cause a full, true, and correct copy of the minutes and 
proceedings of the said canvassing board in the canvass and compilation of the 
returns from the several precincts in said Territory of the results of the said 
election so held on November 7, 1916, for the election of a Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska, to the Sixty-fifth Congress ; said record and minutes being prop- 
erly certified to as a full, true, and correct copy by the governor of Alaska as 
chairman of said canvassing board and to which the hand of the secretary of 
Alaska is attached and the seal of said Territory ; and said contestant will also 
introduce the testimony of James Wickersham and such other evidence and 
testimony as may be proper and pertinent at that time and which shall be 



52 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. , 

within the issues of the case. Contestant reserves tlie right to introduce otlier 
testimony upon further notice in said cause. Please talve notice and be present 
at the time and place herein indicated. 

James Wickebsham, 

In propria pei'sonae. 

Washington, D. C, May 12, 1911. 

United States of America, 

District of Columbia, ss: 

, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a male person 

over the age of 21 years, a citizen of the United States and not a party to or 

interested in the foregoing contest ; that on the ■ day of May, 1917, he 

.served a full, true, and correct copy of the above and foregoing notice of taking 
the testimony and deposition of James Wickersham upon Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee, in the city of Washington, and within the District of Columbia^ by per- 
sonally delivering to and leaving with said Sulzer personally said full, true, and 
correct copy thereof. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 1917. 

Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia. 

Exhibit No. 2. 5/16/17. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
We, the undersigned, constituting the canvassing board of Alaska, as estab- 
lished by law, do hereby certify that the within is a full, true, and correct copy 
of the original minutes of the canvassing board of Alaska and the documents 
connected therewith and a part of said minutes, general election of 1916, as they 
appear on file in the office of the Secretary of the Territory of Alaska. 

In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals, and the 
secretary of the Territory of Alaska has hereunto attached the great seal of the 
Territory of Alaska this 29th day of March, A. D. 1917. 

J. F. A. Strong, [seal.] 

Governor of Alaska. 
J. F. PuGH, [seal.] 

Collector of Customs of AlasJoa. 
Charles E. Davidson, [seal.] 
Surveyor General of Alaska and ex officio Secretary of the Territory. 
Attest : 
[seal.] Charles E. Davidson, 

Secretary of Alaska. 

Minutes of Meetings of Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska, January, 1917. 

Go^^rnor's Office, 
Juneau, Alaska, January 19, 1917, 
The canvassing board met this day at the governor's office, at 2 o'clock p. m., 
for the purpose of canvassing the returns for the election for Delegate to Con- 
gress, for members of the Territorial legislature, and for road commissioner in 
the four road districts of the Territory. The members of the canvassing board 
being those mentioned in the law : Governor, surveyor general, collector of 
customs. 

Mr. M. H. Sides and A. W. Fox were appointed to tally the votes and Mr. 
Frank A. Brittain stenographer. 

Precinct No. 1, Douglas, was the first canvassed, the vote shown being as 
follows : 

No. votes. 

Lena Morrow Lewis 

Charles A. Sulzer 

James Wickersham 

John M. Greene 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 53 

No votes. 

James Heckman 

J. M. Tanner 

Carl Arola 

I^^els Anderson 

John Z. Bayless 

Monte Benson 

W. W. Casey 

James J. Connors 

Jofln Fahey : 

James Freeburn 

John G. Held 

Charles Helsing 

Peter C. McCormack 

Peter S. Early , 

Ed. C. Hurlburt 

John H. Cobb 

George B. Grigsby 

Oeorge D. Schofield 

Drv 

Wet : 

Eight hour — yes 

Eight honr — no 

Scattering 

GovEKNOK. Mr. Grigsby, the question which is confronting us is the matter of 
ballots rejected by the election board of precinct No. 1, Douglas, because they 
are marked on the right side of the ballot instead of on the left, as specified. It 
is apparent from the face of the ballot that the votes should be counted ; that is, 
where the intention of the voter, is apparent, as in this first ballot. 

Mr. Grigsby. You are entitled to count the vote. 

Governor. Your opinion to the board, then, is that this board should count 
these ballots, notwithstanding they are marked on the right-hand side instead 
of the left, the intention of the voter being apparent. 

Mr. Grigsby. That is my opinion, and I so advise the board to count the 
ballots. 

Governor. I direct your attention to the last ballot of Douglas precinct No. 1. 

Mr. Grigsby. As far as any candidate is concerned, it does not matter ; but as 
for the " wet " vote, it might be counted. 

Mr. E. Russell. Is this board going ahead and settle the technical questions 
before the ballots are exposed? There are several questions involved: First, 
that of marking a voter's ballot. Whether you are going to allow the ballots to 
he counted that are marked on the outside and do not invalidate the ballot in 
any other waJ^ In other words, it is clearly evident that the voter has voted 
1 for attorney general, 1 for senator, 1 wet or dry, and whether that question is 
to be settled by the board. I will cite to you the question of the precinct of 
Utica. The status of the Utica precinct, where the board is going to pass on 
these questions, make it a matter of record. 

Governor. We know nothing of Utica precinct until we come to it. Officially, 
we know absolutely nothing about the Utica precinct. 

Mr. E. Russell. The only question I have is in the first division, in the count 
■of the legislative ticket. 

Governor. We have sent for the Territorial counsel because of the six votes in 
precinct No. 1, Douglas, not being counted for the reason, evidently, although 
not stated in the slip, they were marked on the wrong side. They were marked 
on the right-hand side instead of the left, hence are the only spoiled ballots not 
counted in precinct No. 1. Douglas. 

Mr. Russell. I am not here to question anything that arises between McCor- 
mack and Freeburn, liut if by any " hook or crook " there should be a precinct 
counted that might change the ballots, then I want to be here. 

Governor. In precinct No. 2, Douglas, we find this : " Spoiled ballots Aot cast 
•or counted." There are three. Evidently the number was torn off in the first 
instance by the election officer, but they failed to tear off the other number after 
the voter had voted. 

Mr. Grigsby. In other words, the .judge spoiled the vote, if anyone did. There 
Is a perforated number and, under the law, the judge as he hands out the ballot 
to the voter tears off the number. The voter then marks his ballot, and it is 
the duty of the board to tear off the second number. If they were not cast they 



54 * WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

would not be in the returns ; they could not be in the returns if they were not 
cast. 

GoA^ERNOR. Do you mean they were never in the ballot box? 

Mr. Grigsby. I do not see how they would send anything up here that they 
did not find in the ballot box, that was not cast. Can you tell who cast them? 
I would advise you to ascertain from the judges whether these votes were put 
in the ballot box ; if not, they should not be sent here ; if voted, they should be 
counted. 

Governor. This is No. 6614. 

Mr. PuGH. Here is a statement from the election board. The statement says : 
" They were not cast or counted." Therefore we have to accept the statement of 
the board that they were not cast or counted. 

GoATERNOE. I waut to ask the Territorial counsel this question : Precinct No. 
1, Douglas, a certain count with six ballots rejected, apparently, because they 
were marked on the right side instead of the left. Is it the province, or does it 
come within the province of this board, to count these ballots and include in 
the votes of precinct No. 1, Douglas, or omit them as though they never existed? 
In other words, is it tlie duty of the board to include these ballots in the count? 

Mr. Grigsby. I do not want to be understood as stating that it is the duty of 
the board to examine the ballots from every precinct to see whether or not they 
are irregular, but where it is called to the attention of the board from the face 
of the ballots that votes are not counted which should be, then it is their duty 
to count them. 

Governor. We will apply this rule all the way through with respect to these 
ballots. The following ballots came with the returns of Douglas precinct. No. 1, 
not counted by the election judges, but counted by the canvassing board : 

Lena Morrow Lewis 1 

Charles A. Sulzer 6 

James Wickersham . 3 

John M. Greene 3 

James Heckman 1 

J. M. Tanner 3 

Carl Arola 1 

Nels Anderson 4 

John Z. Bayless 1 

Monte Benson 4 

W. W. Casey 3 

James J. Connors 1 

John Fahey 1 

James Freeburn 2 

John G. Held 2 

Charles Helsing 1 

Peter C. McCormack 2 

George D. Schofield 4 

George B. Grigsby 2 

Ed. C. Hurlburt 6 

Wet 7 

Dry 1 

Eight-hour, yes 6 

SALMON CREEK SHEEP CREEK JUNEAU NO. 3 CHICHAGOF CHILKAT. 

The following letter was addressed to Gov. J. F. Strong: 

" Haines, Alaska, Novemlyer 8, 1916. 
" Gov. J. F. Strong, 

"Juneau, Alaska: 
" I herewith inclose the election returns from Chilkat voting precinct, five 
of which were not counted, the other two judges contending they were not 
legal, owing to the fact that the voters marked them in the regular way, but 
omitted placing the " X " in the proper margin. 

" Personally, being one of the judges, I contend that four of the said votes 
are legal. 

" You will note the slight irregularities on said ballots. It is evident that 
the said voters showed their intention and signified same by placing " X " 
after their choice. 

" Leon F. Ballard, 
" Judge of Election." 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 55 

% 

GovEENOK. We will accept three and reject two ballots, one rejected because 
the voter signed his name to the ballot instead of putting an " X," the other 
because the voter had voted for an excess number of candidates. The others, 
according to the territorial counsel, were marked on the right margin of the 
ballot instead of the left, and according to his ruling, as in the Douglas precinct, 
these votes are counted. 

The following ballots came with the returns of Chilkat, not counted by the 
election judges, but counted by the canvassing board: 

Charles A. Sulzer 3 

J. M. Tanner 2 

Nels Anderson 1 

Monte Benson 1 

W. W. Casey 1 

J. J. Connors 1 

John Fahey 1 

Charles Helsing 1 

Peter S. Early 2 

J. H. Cobb .- 1 

Geo. B. Grigsby 1 

Dry 3 

Eight-hour, yes 3 

EAGI.E — GOLD CEEEK. 

Three votes irregular, voters having voted for an excess number of can- 
didates. 

HAINES — HOONAH JUALIN JUALPA KAKE MENDENHALL PERSEVERANCE— 

PETERSBURG SITKA — SKAGWAY TENAKEE TREADWELL NO. 6 WINDHAM BAY 

WEANGELL SHAKAN. 

It being 5 o'clock, the board adjourned until 10 a. m. Saturday, January 20. 

SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1017. 

The canvassing board resumed the checking of election returns from the 
s'djournment on Friday, the following being the order in which the returns 
were taken up : Beaver Falls, Charcoal Point, Craig, Dolomi, Hadley, Kassan, 
Ketchikan, Loring. 

The election board at Loring failed to extend the tally book or to file the 
certificate. The canvassing board completed the tally and entered the vote 
from the tally sheet. 

The following letter, addressed to Gov. Strong, was read : 

" Loring, Novemher 8, 1916. 
" Dear Sir : We, the undersigned judges of election, regret to report that 
three spoiled or wrongly marked ballots were destroyed by one of the voters 
lucking them off the floor and burning them as waste paper before any of us 
noticed what had been done. 
" Yours truly, 

" Con E. Gkebil. 
" Mike Wadding, 
" Thos. McLoughlin." 

.juneau, precinct no. 2 juneau, precinct no. 1 scow bay sulzee. 

The board received no returns from the voting precincts at Chatham. Dundas, 
Gypsum, Warm Springs, Yakitat. 

The board was officially advised by the United States commissioner at Yakitat 
that no election was held in that precinct because " election literature " was 
not received in time to hold the election. 

Governor. The following is a copy of a telegram received from United States 
Commissioner DeArmond at Sitka, received by the clerk of the court for the 
first judicial division, with affidavit attached : " Official ballots received and 
forwarded in due time to all voting precincts where judges could be appointed. 
Could find no one to appoint at Warm Springs, Chatham, or Dundas. Gypsum 
returned their ballots saying ' No election.' " 



56 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Wr. W. A. HoLZHEiMEE. Ill representing the Democratic central committee I 
do not want to enter any objection to the informal count of the vote and delay 
matters, but would reserve the right of protest prior to this board certifying to 
its returns. I do not know that we have any right; at the same time, if there 
is a question. I want to reserve my right. 

BLUFF— DEEEING. 

There were no tally sheets received with the returns from Deering. 

UTICA. 

Governor. Mr. Grigsby, all that we have from this voting precinct is the 
register of the persons voting. Of course, we have the order establishing the 
voting precinct. We have a register in penciling of the persons voting in that 
precinct, together with " home-made " ballots, and that is all we have. 

Mr. Grigsby. No certificate? 

Goveenoe. We received no certificate. However, I have here a telegram from 
the clerk of the court from the second .iudieial division under date of Deceml)er 
18, 1916, reading : " Utica made returns without certificate. Returns to you 
may have certificate. For reasons unknown, electicui blanks and ballots failed 
to reach Utica and Deering. Utica election no doubt legal, but returns prob- 
ably defective." Then, on January 11 I received this telegram from the clerk 
of tlie court : " Second set election returns Utica precinct, including certificate, 
register of oaths of judges, and pay roll received this oflBce to-day. All In due 
form and properly signed." Then he gives the results. 

(tovernor. T'tica was designated as a voting precinct. 

Mr. r,RiGSBY. There is no certificate of any judges here now? 

Governor. None, except the certificates of the persons voting. 

Mr. Grigsby. You can not count it as it stands, as the law says you have 
to canvass the vote specified in the certificate. 

C. E. Davidson. On the other hand, tlie clerk of the court says he has the 
certificate there. 

Mr. PuGH. Are we supposed to check the returns by telegraph like this? 
If there are any papers missing and the clerk has them? 

Mr. Grigsby. The board has the right to adjourn from day to day, but they 
can not count tlie returns. I do not believe that the law requires the tally to 
come at all. There is nothing certified to here. Nothing to show that this 
comes from the proper parties at all. In this case you have a right to send for 
the certificate. 

Governor. Mv. Grigsby, the clerk of the court gives the results in this tele- 
gram of Utica precinct. 

Mr. Grigsby. That is not any part of his official duty. All he has to do is to 
do what the statute requires him. They send him duplicate certificate and he 
makes a copy of it. 

Governor. I have wired the clei'k asking him whether he has already mailed 
the second set to this oflice and when ; and if he has not done so to do so at 
once, advising this office. 

Mr. Grigsby. That is proper. 

Go\ernor. We will pass the vote of the Utica precinct for the time being. 
It was the unanimous vote of the board to carry over for the time being the 
counting of the vote of the Utica precinct. 

Governor. The Deering ballots were typewritten in the official form, however, 
and the board assumes that they did not receive the olficial ballot. 

Mr. Grigsby. Section 21 of election laws reads : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official l)allots have been ,receive(l, tlie voters are permitted to write or print 
their liallots. but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accom- 
pany and be made a part of the election returns." 

Governor. INIr. Grigsby, we have the certificate from the judges of election at 
Deering, together with the " home-made " ballots only. 

Mr. Grigsby. You must have a list of all the voters who voted at the 1916 
election, together with a certificate of the voter. 

Mr. Pugh. ^A'c have a certificate of the votes and certificate <^f the result 
from the judges of election; then follows the result of the vote. There is no 
explanation made as to why these liallots are used instead of the ofiiclal ballot. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 57 

\ 

Mr. Gkigsby. It -loes not necessarily follow that yon can not count the votes. 

GovERNOE. We have here a telegram which, of course, is authentic, I know, 
that for some reason unknown to the clerk of the court ballots failed to reach 
Deering. 

Mr. Grigsby. Evidently he does not know anything about them making an 
-affidavit explaining it. 

Governor. Would it not be considered as prima facie evidence that the fact 
that the election board did not use the printed official ballot, they did not have 
them? 

Mr. Grigsby. The chances are they would ; yes. 

Governor. We have already passed the Utica precinct for the present. We 
^vill pass the Deering until later. 

(It was the unanimous vote of the board to pass on the Deering vote later.) 

' SOLOMON. 

The register of voters was not received from the judges of election of the 
Solomon precinct. 

Governor. We will proceed to canvas the vote on the certificate of the judges. 

CAPE NOME- -PILGRI:N£ RIVER. 

The certificate from the judges designates this voting place as " Iron Creek," 
but the commissioners' notice shows that it is Pilgrim River No. 1, the polling 
place being Iron Creek Road House. In the certificate received from the judges 
of election, the voting precinct was called Iron Creek, evidently an error on the 
part of the judges. 

KOYUK TAYLOR CREEK NO. 3 CANDLE CREEK. 

There was no tally sheet received from the judges of election from Candle 
•Creek voting precinct. 

KOBUK COUNCIL. 

The returns from the judges of election at Council were not accompanied by a 
t?(\.\Y sheet. \ 

CHINIK. 

There was no tally sheet received from the election judges at Chinik polling 
precinct. 

FORT CLARENCE ST. MICHAEL NO. 1 NOME NO. 1. 

There were no tally sheets received from the election judges from Nome, 
precinct No. 1. 

NOME, PRECINCT NO. 3 NOME, PRECINCT NO. 2 SHELTON. 

There were no tally sheets received from the election judges at Shelton. 

Go\^RNOR. There seems to be no returns from St. Michael, precinct No. 1 ; 
AVadehampton, precincts Nos. 1 and 2. 

Mr. Ed. Russell. Is it the intention of the canvassing board to get out the 
legislative returns as soon as possible? 

Governor. Yes ; just as soon as we can get the vote in. 

It being 4 o'clock p. m., the board adjourned until 10 a. m. Monday, January 
■22, 1917. 

The adjourned meeting of the board met at 10 o'clock a. m., Monday, January 
22, 1917, and resumed the counting of ballots, all members of the board being 
present. 

GOVERNOR. 

Governor. In reply to telegram sent by the board on January 20 to the clerk 
•of the court, Adams, at Nome, inquiring if the certificate of election at Utica 
precinct had been mailed to the board, received the following reply : " Certified 
copy certificate of election Utica pi-ecinct mailed January 11. Do you wish 
c-ertifled copy register and oaths judges also? " 

The counting of the ballots in the third division \\ere first taken up and were 
■counted in the following order : 



58 WICKBESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

MATAXUSKA. 

The board found that there was uo copy on file of the notice of election at 
Valdez recording precinct and the following telegram was sent to the United 
States commissioner at Valdez : " Canvassing board has no certified copy of 
order and notice of election establishing voting precinct in your recording dis- 
trict. Wire this office to-day, if possible, giving date of order and notice and 
name of polling place of each voting precinct established by you for general 
election November 7th, last." 

NIZINA HOPE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, VOTING PRECINCT, UNALASKA POLLING PLACE — - 

BONANZA, CHUSANA RIVER DISTRICT ANCHORAGE NO. 2 — UNGA AFOGNAK 

KENAI ILIAMNA. 

The notice of election issued by the United States commissioner for Iliamna 
recording precinct showed that it had been issued on September 29, 1916. 

KODIAK NINILCHIC OUZINKIE KNIK — CACHE CREEK GIRDWOOD — SUSITNA 

LATOUCHE, VALDEZ PRECINCT. 

The board temporarily passed Latouche for the reason that no notice of 
election had been received. 

M'DOUGALL — CHUSANA ROOSEVELT. 

The precinct election board rejected two ballots for reasons shown thereon. 

ALLAN COPPER CENTER. 

The board found that there was no copy on file of the notice of election. The 
commissioner was wired for the information, the telegram reading as follows: 
" Canvassing board has no certified copy of order and notice of election estab- 
lishing voting precinct in your recording district. Wire this office to-day, if 
possible, giving date of order and notice and name of polling place of each 
voting precinct established by you for general election November 7th, last." 

TEIKEL — TIEKHELL. 

This place being in the Valdez recording precinct was passed temporarily 
by the board for the reason that no election notice had been received from the 
United States commissioner of the Valdez recording precinct, in which Tiekhell 
voting precinct is situated. 

FIDALGO. 

These votes were not counted, but passed temporarily, for the same reason 
that the votes in Tiekhell were passed. 

SUNRISE GILPATRICK. 

Tlie board adjourned to meet again at 2 o'clock p. m. 

The board, after taking recess for lunch, resumed counting of votes at 2 p. m. 

In the matter of the order calling for election in Valdez recording district, 
the canvassing board received a telegram in reply to their wire forwarded 
to United States Connuissioner Love, at Valdez, as follows : 

" Order for voting precincts November election issued by me August 15 ; copy 
forwarded your office establishing nine voting precincts — Granby, Cliff, Teikell, 
Elleman. Landlock. Fidalgo, Latouche, Port Wells, Granite. Location polling 
places : Granby, office of Granby Consolidated Mining Co., in Valdez Bay ; ClifC, 
mess house. Cliff mine, Valdez Bay; Teikell, main room, Teikell Road House; 
Elleniar, main room, store Ellemar Mining Co., in EUemar ; Landlock, bunk 
house. Three Man Mining Co., Landlock; Fidelgo, warehouse, Fidelgo Alaska 
Copper Co., Fidelgo Bay ; Latouche, store Beatson Copper Co., Latouche ; Port 
AVells, store W. C. L. Beyer, W. Golden; Granite, warehouse Granite Gold 
Mining Co., Granite. 

" Geo. J. Love, 
''Commissioner Valdez Voting Precinct." 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. i 59 

The cauvassins board wired the commissioner (Love) to mail dniilicate copy 
of order of election to this office. 

BONAIVZA (CHITINA DISTRICT) CHIGNIK (TNGA DISTRICT) CHITIXA EYAK 

JUMBO KATALLA KENNECOTT MOOSE CREEK SELDOVIA STRELNA TAL- 

KEETN A — ^W A S SII.LA . 

One ballot was not counted, for the reason that the voter had voted for five 
Representatives. 

WILLOW CREEK- — ANCHORAGE NO. 1 CORDOVA— VALDEZ SEWARD M'CARTHY CLIFF 

(VALDEZ DISTRICT). 

Tlie following affidavit, subscribed to by L. C. Townsend before Anthony J. 
Dimoud, notary public, was read : 

" United States of America, 

''Territory of Alaska. 
" L. C. Townsend. being first duly swoi-n, deposes and says : I am one of the 
judges of election of the Cliff precinct, within the third judicial division, Terri- 
tory of Alaska, and acted as such judge of election for the election held Novem- 
ber 7, 1916. The other judges of election for such precinct were M. V. Fox 
and Harry Wilson. That on the said 7th of November. 1916, at the Cliff mine, 
the voting place for said precinct, and before the voting began, I and the others 
of said judges of election signed tlie form of oath as such judges of election on 
the cover of the election register, and I took the oaths of the said M. V. Fox 
and Harry Wilson as such judges of election to honestly, faithfully, and prop- 
erly perform the duties of judges of election for said precinct, and thereafter 
I was sworn in in like manner by the said Harry Wilson. That, though 
unfamiliar with the procedure of election and the manner of making certificate 
of oaths, neither I nor the said Harry Wilson affixed to the election register 
any certificates to show that all of the judges of election had taken such oaths, 
althougli the other two judges of election really made the proper oaths as 
hereinbefore mentioned according to law." . 

Governor. This is one of the precincts for whose establishment the canvass- 
ing board has had no notice, but which is explained in the telegram above re- 
ceived from George J. Love, LTnited States commissioner for Valdez recording 
district. 

GRANITE (VALDEZ RECORDING DISTRICT). 

The board has received no notice of election, except the telegram of tlie com- 
missioner. 

While it appears that the oavh of office should be taken by judges of election 
was signed by each of the judges, it does not appear that the oath was sub- 
scribed and sworn to before any specific person. 

Mr. J. Hellenthal, appearing for Mr. Charles A. Sulzer, objected to the vote 
of Granite precinct being counted, on the ground that it did not show that 
the judges of such election in such precinct were judges of election, there being 
no evidence that they had taken the oath prescribed by law. 

Governor. The vote will be counted. 

C. E. Davidson. I want to vote that the returns of Granite be counted, as the 
intent of the voter is perfectly apparent. 

ELLEMAR FIDELGO. 

Mr. J. Hellenthal makes the same objection to the counting of the Fidelgo 
votes as for the votes at Granite. 

I would suggest that there may be others of a similar character, and this is 
an important question. I am giving you this as off-hand opinion, as I might 
consult authorities and change my mind. I would suggest that the board take 
all these returns where a similar condition appears and pass counting the vote 
for the present, until Mr. Grigsby can look it up and give his opinion. 

Governor. It is now 10 minutes after 4, and I have to open some bids at 4.30. 
I move that the board adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. In the 
meantime this question can be submitted to Mr. Grigsby for an opinion. 



60 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Mr. Hellenthal. May I ask, in those cases where the count has heen made 
there seams to be a general situation whicli has frequently happened, whether 
these votes are passed so they can not be gone over? 

GovERNOE. No ; the returns are not passed, but what they can be gone over 
again. 

Mr. HellenthaIv. The board can still act upon them? 

Governor. The board has not issued any certificate whatever. The returns 
are open until the board has certified to them. The board is adjourned until 
10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

Governor. In the matter of tlie vote in the Granite district, Valdez recording 
district, Mr. Hellentlial has objected on behalf of Mr. Sulzer to the counting of 
the vote of Granite precinct, in the Valdez recording district, on the ground that 
the election board of tliat precinct had not taken any oath, as required by law. 

Mr. Gragsby. I have not looked up the law on this question especially, but I 
will look it up and give my opinion by 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1917. 

The board met at 10 o'clock this morning, after adjournment of yesterday, and 
adjourned until 2 o'clock p. m. to-day. 

Governor. The board will come to order, time being 2 o'clock p. m.. all mem- 
bers of the board being present. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I have here a list of precincts, mostly in the third division. 
In which I am told the returns are irregular. I have not at the present moment 
the exact data from which I can give you the returns in each case in the various 
precincts ; but I will hand you a list of the precincts which I have, over 22 in 
number, and I will enter a protest against the canvass of the vote or the count- 
ing of the vote in each of these precincts. 

THIRD .TUDICIAL DIVISION BONANZA, NIZINA, AFOGNAIv, SUNRISE, SOURDOUGH. 

GRANBY, TEIKHELL (ON VALDEZ TRAIL), LANDLOCK, SELDOVIA, TEIKEL (ON COPPER 
RIVER RAILROAD), BONANZA (IN SHUSHANA), WHITE RIVER, HOPE, M'DOLTGALL, 
MATANUSKA, KENAI, GRANITE, NTTSHUGAK, CHOGGUING. 

SECOND .TUDICIAL DIVISION DIM, UTICA, DEERING. 

The reason in each case being that there Avas no evidence before the board 
that the precincts were duly established or that there was an existing election 
precinct. Two, that there was no evidence before the board that those who 
purport to have acted as judges of election were qualified to so act. There 
being no evidence that they appeared in any case and no evidence of the fact 
that they have taken the oath and qualified as by law required. Three, that 
where the official ballots were not used the returns of the judges is not indi- 
cated. No reason or excuse why they were not used and why other ballots 
were substituted. These are the principal grounds of protest, although there 
are others which I have not had time to investigate. I have this list of pre- 
cincts here. I have not gone over them myself. Many of these objections may 
not be w^ell founded. The matter is of a good deal of importance to both can- 
didates, and I would ask the board to hold the result of these precincts in abey- 
ance until such time as the matter can be investigated, to determine whether 
they should be counted or should not be counted. 

Governor. Inasmuch as the board's canvass will not be complete until all 
the returns are received, no report of the board will be made until the canvass 
is completed, which probably will be. from present appearances, a month or 
more. After counting of the votes which have been received, the board will ad- 
journ from time to time until all the returns are in, if they are ever received, 
and I do not anticipate there will be any question of their not being received. 
I do know that some certified returns from Utica, in the second judicial 
division, are noAv on the Avay, having been mailed .January 11, according to 
telegram received by the board from the clerk of the second judicial division. 
Mr. Hellenthal, your objections will be noted and appear in the minutes. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I do not want to have the matter considered until the 
votes are fully canvassed by the board. If they have not been canvassed there 
might be a question whether the court could go back over them. It will be 
just as easy to note each particular precinct and not count it until the vote 
can be canvassed and investigated. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEE. 61 

\ 

GovEKNOE. The vote canvassed in the vote of the election last November can 
not be considered as canvassed until the returns are in and reported on by the 
board. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I rather think you are right about it, Governor. I think 
it would probably be safer, in the case of these contested precincts, to delay 
the count and the canvassing until the matter can be investigated. 

Mr. Grigsby. If the board can adopt a rule that this tally is not their final 
judgment until we determine who should be elected from the final total, you 
can reconsider it at the time you give your certificates. 

GovEKNOR. I do not consider the vote as being canvassed until after the re- 
turns are in and reported on by the board. 

Judge Winn. I join in these protests which Mr. Hellenthal has made, as 
there is some legal remedy by which this matter could be reached. Everything 
is new and it has not been investigated thoroughly yet, but if the board had 
any doubt about it it might be consoling to the board to have the matter tested 
before announcing final decision or conclusion in the matter. I think the 
Governor has the right idea. You might go over these returns and not an- 
nounce them until we have had a chance to investigate. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I think, as Mr. Grigsby decided, that the board adopt a 
rule that none of the precincts shall be canvassed until the whole canvass is 
completed, the board can then consider these matters at any time. 

Go^^RNOR. The board can do that without a rule. 

Mr. Grigsby. Go ahead and count the returns and put on the tally sheets 
with the understanding that you adopt that as your canvass ; then you can say 
that the canvass is not yet made. 

Governor. In the case of the third judicial division all the returns are not 
in, therefore the canvas will not be completed until they are all in. 

Mr. Hellenthal. In the case of the second division I want to enter a form 
of protest, in the name of Charles A. Sulzer, against the count of any of the 
votes in any of the precincts on the ground that in that division, none of the 
Federal officers and none of the election officers have made the slightest attempt 
to comply with the acts of the legislature passed in 1915. None of the elections 
have been held in compliance with any of the provisions of that act in nonce of 
the returns that were made. 

Mr. Grigsby. The ballots were printed. 

Mr. Hellenthal. All the other provisions of the act have been ignored. 

Governor. Mr. Hellenthal, your objection covers all the second division? 

Mr. Hellenthal. It covers each precinct separately and all precincts to- 
gether. 

Judge Winn. I join in with what Mr. Hellenthal has requested. 

Go\'ERNOR. Before we act upon this a motion will be made that this is the 
final report of the canvassing board and that certificate shall be issued to the 
members found elected according to the board's tabulation of the returns. 

FIDALGO GRANBT. 

Wire was sent to C. Parker Smith, United States commissioner at Copper 
Center recording district, asking him to forward a copy of the order and 
notice of election in his recording district. 

The following telegram was received from C. Parker Smith, United States 
Commissioner at Copper Center : " Seven notices issued under date of August 
15 and posted. Also copy sent clerk of court, Valdez. Notice specifies Sour- 
dough and Copper Center as voting precincts, with boundaries of each. Mail 
left here about August 19, with notice to officials of action taken." 

LANDLOCK LATOUCHE TIEKHELL COPPER CENTER SOURDOUGH. 

Voting precinct in Copper Center recording district, the oath of office taken by 
judges of election was simply signed by the judges without date being shown. 

FOURTH JUDICIAL DIVISION. 

FAIRBANKS, FORT YUKON. POORMAN. SPRUCE CREEK, KANTISHXA (RECORDING 

DISTRICT. ) 

The canvassing board found that there was no copy of commissioner's notice 
or order of election for the Kantishna recording district, so the clerk of the 



62 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

court of the fourth judicial division at Fairbanks was wired that no notice of 
election had been received for the Kantishna, Otter, or Koyukuk recording dis- 
tricts, and to forward same at once. 

GREENSTONE SETTLES. 

The canvassing board did not receive order of election from the clerk of the 
court, and wire was sent requesting that same be forwarded to this office at once. 

IDITAKOD CRIPPLE ANTAK MOUTH OF CROOKIT LOWER DOME WOODCHOPPER 

(HOT SPRINGS RECORDING DISTRICT). 

The notice and order of election establishing Woodchopper voting precinct in 
Hot Springs recording district, together with election register and tally book, 
were not received by the canvassing board. The precinct is called Tofty voting 
precinct. Hot Springs recording district. 

Governor. What shall be done with these marred ballots? The rule that we 
have been working under, in order to secure uniformity, has been to reject 
ballots so marked as illegal. What shall be done in this case? 

The Board. Follow the rule. 

Governor. The ballots will be rejected and the counts will be corrected in ac- 
cordance therewith. 

The board will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1917. 

The board came to order, all members being present, and resumed the tallying 
of the election returns, the following being the order in which they were taken 
up : Moose Creek, Graehl, Fairbanks Creek, Salchacket. 

The canvassing board received no order and notice of election from the Sal- 
chacket voting precinct in the Tana^na recording district, fourth judicial divi- 
sion, and the vote consequently was passed, and the clerk of the court at Fair-, 
banks was wired and asked to send a duplicate copy of the oaths and order of 
election if it could be procured from the commissioner. 

CHENA UPPER CLEARY EAGLE— HOT SPRINGS ESTER. 

Ester voting precinct, vote rejected by the election board because a name had 
been written in the ballot, as provided by law, was counted by the canvassing 
board. 

LOWER GOLDSTREAM PEDRO LOWER CLEARY LITTLE ELDERADO — FISH CREEK WEST 

FORK BROOKS — GILMOEE UPPER GOLDSTREAM CHICKEN CREEK WOODCHOPPER — 

STEEL CREEK FRANKLIN JACK WADE — LOUDEN NULATO (NULATO RECORDING 

DISTRICT ) — ^RAMPART. 

The canvassing board received no notice of election from Rampart recording 
district. The clerk of the court of the Fourth Judicial Division was telegraphed 
in relation thereto. 

OPHIR. 

The board took a recess for lunch, to meet again at 2 p. m. 

2. p. m. The board reassembled to continue the tally of the vote in the fourth 
division, the following being the order in which they were taken up : Railroad, 
Upper Dome, Vault. 

In Vault voting precinct, Fairbanks recording district, there was no notice 
of election or tally book received by the canvassing board nor were the cer- 
tificates of judges of election to the election returns signed by the election 
judges. 

M'GRATH (mount M'KINLEY RECORDING DISTRICT). 

The vote of McGrath, in Mount McKinley recording district, was passed for 
the time being by the board for the reason that some of the returns were not 
complete, and the clerk of the court of the Fourth Judicial Division was wired 
in regard to same. 



WIOKEKSHAM VS. SULZEK. 6$ 

% 
TOKOTNA. 

The tally of the votes in Tokotna was passed for the present by the board for 
the same reasons as that of McGrath were passed. 

TAN ANA — EUEEKA (HOT SPRINGS EECOEDING DISTEICT). 

One ballot counted by the election board disallowed by the canvassing board. 

DEADWOOD BONNrFIELD. 

At Bonnifield sample ballots were used, but there were no affidavits from 
the judges as to why they were used, but a letter from the clerk of the court 
says that they sent official ballots but sample ballots were used instead. 

CIECLE — FOET GIBSON ( TAN ANA DISTEICT ). 

No notice of election or election order was received by the canvassing board. 
United States Commissioner J. C. Dehn was wired relative thereto. 

MILLER HOUSE LONG NENANA TOLSTOI RUBY. 

The board proceeded to check up the tally of the votes from St. Michael No. 2, 
and Wadehampton Nos. 1 and 2, of the Second Judicial Division, which were 
received this day. 

ST. MICHAEL NO. 2. 

The tally sheets or oaths of judges of election of St. Michael No. 2 were not 
received with the returns. * 

GovEENOE. We will proceed to count the votes of St. Michael No. 2. 

WADEHAMPTON NO. 1. 

No tally sheet or oaths of judges were received by the canvassing board from 
the judges of election. 

WADEHAMPTON NO. 2. 

No tally sheet or oaths of judges were received from the judges of election 
by the canvassing board. 

Governor. I make the motion that the board adjourn subject to call. 

C. E. Davidson. Second the motion. 

GovEENOE. The board moved and seconded that we adjourn subject to call. 

Goveenoe's Office, Juneau, Alaska, Januaey 31, 1917. 

The canvassing board met at 2 o'clock p. m., after the adjourned meeting 
of January 19, to contiiuie the canvass of the ballots from the November, 1916, 
election. All members of the board present. 

Governor. We have notice and order of election from Valdez precinct. I 
have telegrams from the clerk of the court of the fourth judicial division, 
Fairbanks, stating that he had mailed original notice and order of election for 
Fort Gibbon voting precinct, Koyukuk recording district, and that he instructed 
all other United States commissioners by wire to forward the same to the 
board immediately. Kantashina, the clerk reported, will be slow, as there is no 
mail or telegraph service there. 

The board also received telegram from United States Commissioner Dehn, 
stating that a notice and order of election had been issued and posted on ' 
August 28 and that a copy of the notice had been given to the judges on the 
morning of election and that a certified copy of the notice was being forwarded 
by mail to the board at Juneau. 

The board also received telegram from George W. Ledger, United States 
commissioner at Rampart, stating that he had mailed by registered letter on 
January 25 a letter containing a certified copy of the notice and order of 
election dated September 7, 1916. 



64 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

A telegram was also received from A. J. Griffin, United States conmiissioner 
of Tanana precinct, stating that he had forwarded by mail on January 26 a 
certified copy of the order and notice of election for Tanana precinct, whick 
was issued by his predecessor. Commissioner James, on September 6. 

With respect to the order and notice of election issued by the commissiouei" 
of Otter precinct, the clerk of the fourth judicial division wired the board on. 
January 24 that he had notified the commissioner at Otter by wire to forward 
copy of the order and notice of election to the board. 

The canvassing board also received the following telegram from the clerk of 
the court of the fourth judicial division, Fairbanks : " Have register and 
certificate of result and oaths of judges of McGrath and Tacotna precincts, 
but no tally sheets. Commissioner Green advised me supplies did not reach them 
in time. He borrowed ballots from Commissioner Vinal. Above duplicate re- 
turns appear properly and carefully prepared." 

AVith respect to the order and notice of election in Otter precinct, the board 
received a copy of the following telegram addressed by the Clerk of the Court 
Clark at Fairbanks to Judge Bunnell, now in Juneau : " Copy order and notice 
of election Otter attached to voucher 24. My account mailed you. Canvassing: 
board can use copy attached in duplicate voucher if they want it." 

We have some information concerning all the voting precincts except Kanti- 
shina and Port Wells, which we have discovered is not here. We have knowl- 
edge of the creation of all these precincts except Kantishina. 

The canvassing board received duplicate copies of the order and notice of 
election in Yaldez recording district and Copper Center recording district. 

KOGGIUNG. 

At the time of appointing judges of election there was only one man recorded 
and he is not a resident, consequently there was no election held. Thus there- 
was no possibility of any one outside of the village of Naknak participating ia 
the election, as the river was full of floating ice and it was impossible to cross> 

(Signed) Wm. Nielson, 

United States Commissioner. 

CHOGIUNG. 

C. E. Davidson. I move that we lay over these ballots until to-morrow and 
ask Mr. Grigsby for his official opinion on the three precincts, namely, Naknak,, 
Nushagak, and Chogiung. 

Motion unanimously carried. 

GovEENOR. We have notices from the commissioner or clerk of all the voting 
precincts except Otter. At Otter the clerk instructed the commissioner at Otter 
by wire to forward copy of order and notice of election. 

Mr. Geigsby. Is there any part of Alaska where they did not use the registra- 
tion book except the second division? 

GovEENOE. Yes ; Tocotna. 

GovEENOR. We will proceed with the tally of votes, first in order being 
McGrath. Rampart, Fort Gibbon, Salchakat, Richardson, Wiseman (Koyukuk 
recording district), Coldfoot (Kuskokwin recording district), Bettles, Tacotna, 
and Georgetown. 

GovEENOE. There were no returns received from Port Wells-voting predict in 
Valdez recording district, and the board wired the clerk of the court for in- 
formation concerning such returns; that is to say, if any have been received 
by him. We have no answer yet. 

The board adjourned to meet again at 2 o'clock p. m. to-morrow. 

The canvassing board met at 2 o'clock p. m., February 1, after adjournment 
of vesterday. All members present. 

Mr. Geigsby. On behalf of Mr. Hellenthal, representing Mr. C. A. Sulzer, I 
protest the vote from the Bristol Bay precincts, Chogiung and Nushigak, in the 
third division, on the ground that the ballots returned are not the official ballots 
prescribed by the statute, and that no certificate of judges in either of said pre- 
cincts accompanied the returns, explaining why the official ballots were not 

used. T T T ^ 

INIr. Geigsby. As far as the form of the ballots is concerned, I do not see any 

reason to throw them out. 

Mr. PuGH. ]Mr. Grigsby, you mean to say that we are to canvass the three 
precincts, namely, Nushagak, Chogiung, and Naknek? 

Mr. Geigsby. Yes. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 65 

t 

GovEKNOR. We will then proceed to count these ballots. 

Mr. Geigsby. They are legal ballots when the voters make their own ballot. 
The law provides that if the voter is not provided with official ballots they can 
make their own ballots. If the official ballots are not provided, there is no 
way of their knowing how or in what order to make the ballots. 

Mr. C. E. Davidson. If that is the law, I think it should be changed, as it 
gives an awful chance for fraud. 

Mr. Gkigsby. I think they should change the law so that the official ballots 
should be used everywhere. 

Goveenoe. We ought to have a law absolutely pi-escribing the universal use 
of the official ballot, and if the precinct does not have the official ballot, then 
the precinct must lose its vote. 

GovEEA'OE. With reference to the vote in Port Wells voting precinct, in the 
Valdez recording district, I wired the clerk of the court last night and received 
the following telegram from the clerk of the court : " No election held Port Wells,, 
Valdez recording district. Also no election held Sanak, Unga recording district j 
Koggiung. Kochak recording district." 

GovEKNOE. I want to say to the board that a request has been made by Mr. 
Hunt, representing Hellenthal .fc Hellenthal, to examine all the votes that' have 
been received by the canvassing board for the purpose of finding what they may 
deem irregularities, under the supervision of this office. The board has dis- 
cussed this matter, and finds no objection to it, but want to announce that if 
anybody representing Mr. Wickersham or any one of the othe'r candidates for 
election wants to check these returns it must be done jointly, and at this time, 
because we can not have the work of this office delayed by having different 
people coming in and making the same request. Some one will be present from 
the governor's office at all times and there will be some one present to represent 
the surveyor general. I want to all'ord all the assistance possible to all parties, 
but this examination will be made under the strict supervision of this office, and 
if there is anybody else who wants to make this examination at the same time 
they are perfectly willing to do so. 

GovEENOR. I trust that this will meet with the sanction of the board. 

The board was un-animous in their assent to allow the inspection of the elec- 
tion returns, ballots, etc., under the supervision of the governor's office. 

GovEENOE. We will take up the Ghoggiung precinct, Nakuek, and Nushagak, 
This winds up the third division. 

Mr. Ed. Russell. Outside of the Reindeer precinct there is some return here 
from all other precincts; that is, the actual- returns are in from all other pre- 
cincts outside of Raindeer? 

GovEENOE. I don't think that Reindeer precinct was ever established. There 
is nothing to show that it was ever established. If it was In the Bristol Bay 
district, we have no notice or anything to show that it was established. 

The board adjourned subject to call. 

Goveenoe's Office, Febeuaey 16, 1917. 

The canvassing board met this morning at 10 o'clock at the request of the 
governor. 

Go^'EENOE. If we are getting the opinion from the territorial counsel on the 
irregularities from certain precincts, it will be only just and proper as well as 
for the protection of this board that we submit to the territorial counsel a list of 
all the irregularities noted and ask for his opinion. Not to segregate two or 
three but to take them all as they occur, for the protection of the board. The 
following list of irregularities I will submit to the territorial counsel and ask 
tor his opinion in writing : Where judges of election failed to execute oath. 
AVhere one judge swore the other two, Ibut was not himself sworn. Where all 
three judges signed the oath form, and one signed the jurat. Where all three 
judges signed the oath form, and two of them signed jurat. Where no registra- 
tion book was used. Where registration book was used, but names of voters 
were written therein by a member of the election board instead of by the voters 
themselves. Where registration book was not certified by the election board. 
Where no register of votes was used, in addition to the registration book. Where 
the election board do not make a duplicate return or certificate of the election 
and forward same to the clerk of the district court. Where (as in the second 
division) no oaths of election officers were with the returns sent to the governor's 

13289—17 5 



66 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

office, but the clerk of the court claims to have furnished oath forms to all the 
boards and that their oaths are on file in his office. Where the election hoard 
do not sign the certificate of result in place of register or registration book. 
Where the election board do not fill in the certificate of result nor sign same. 
Where the only record of result is the tally sheets sent in by the board, only one 
of which is certified. Where unofficial ballots were used and uo explanation 
made by election board as to why they were used. Where " sample ballots " 
were used (furnished by clerk of court) instead of the official bfillots, ;iud no 
explanation given. Where "workers' ballots" were used instead of official 
ballots, and no explanation made by the election board. Where " workers' bal- 
lots " were used instead of official ballots (the ballots used being the name of a 
political party) and explanation made hj election board as to their use. Where 
election returns are in, but canvassing board has no copy of commissioner's 
notice and order of election. 

Governor. I will prepare a letter and address it to the Territorial counsel and 
ask him to give an opinion on all points covered by these questions. 

The board adjourned, subject to call. 

Goveenoe's Office, Febbuaby 28, 1917. 

The canvassing board met this afternoon at 2 o'clock at the request of the 
governor. 

Governor. The legislative returns for the first judicial division will now be 
taken up. Mr. Fox will read the vote of the legislative ticket. Read the returns 
on the legislative ticket, the vote for road supervisors, the wet-and-dry vote, and 
the eight-hour law. 

ROAD SUPERVISORS. 

Peter S. Early jl ^ 1, 847 

Ed. C. Hurlbert 2, 042 

Mr. Davidson. I move that we issue certificate of election to Mr. Hurlbert. 

Mr. PuGH. Motion seconded. 

Governor. It is moved and seconded that the certificate of election be issued 
to Ed. C. Hurlbert, it having been shown that Mr. Hurlbert received the highest 
number of votes in the first division for the office of road supervisor. 

Motion unanimously carried. 

Governor. The certificate of election will be issued by the secretaiy. 

The above motion will remain the same for senators, representatives, and 
road supervisors, but for that covering the attorney general, the wet-and-dry 
vote, and the eight-hour law will be covered for the four divisions in one. 

Eight-hour law : For, 3,635 ; against, 573. 

Wet, 1,669 ; dry, 2,941. 

SENATOR. 

John F. Green 382 

Jas. R. Heckman 2, 097 

J. M. Tanner 1,880 

REPRESENTATIVES . 

Carl Arola 383 

Nels Anderson 1, 487 

.John Z. Bayless 1, 596 

Monte Benson 1,955 

W. W. Casey 1,943 

Jas. J. Connors 1, 562 

.John J. Fahey 388 

James Freeburn 1,791 

John G. Held 2, 043 

Chas. Helsing 514 

Peter C. McCormick 1, 822 

ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

.Tohn H. Cobb 1,326 

Geo. B. Grigsby 1, 528 

Geo. D. Schofield 1, 325 



WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. * 67 

GoA'ERNOE. The count shows that Jas. R. Heckman received the highest num- 
ber of votes for Senator for the First Judicial Division and Monte Benson, 
John G. Heid, W. W. Casey, and Peter C. McCormick for Members of the 
House. A certificate will not be necessary in the case of Mr. Heid, unfortu- 
nately, he having died, as you all know. 

C. E. Davidson. I move that certificates be issued to the Members just 
names. 

Motion seconded by Mr. Pugh. 

Governor. It is moved and seconded that certificates of election be issued to 
Jas. R. Heckman as Senator from the First Judicial Division, also to Monte 
Benson, W. W. Casey, and Peter C. McCormick as Members of the House of 
the First Judicial Division. 

Motion unanimously carried. 

Governor. The certificates will be duly issued. 

Governor. We will now take up the Second Judicial Division, with the ex- 
ception of the votes cast for Phil Corrigan and Thos. M. Reed. 

SENATOR. 

Thos. McGann 605 

Martin F. Moran 343 

John Sundback 729 

REPRESENTATIVES. 

A. A. Allen 796 

Andy Anderson 716 

Nate H. Coombs 791 

Jas. P. Daly 809 

Chas. D. .Jones 622 

Victor A. .Tulien 436 

Mike Young 431 

ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

John H. Cobb : 190 

Geo. B. Grigsby 1, 142 

Geo. D. Schofield 313 

ROAD SUPERVISORS. 

Barney Gibney 340 

W. J. Rowe 653 

John A. Wilson 689 

Wet, 591 ; dry, 1,025. 

Eight-hour law : Yes, 995 ; No, 248. 
Scattering votes, 2. 

Mr. Pugh. I make a motion that certificates be issued to those who secured 
the highest number of votes. 

C. E. Davidson. Seconded motion. 

Governor. It is moved and seconded that certificates of election be issued 
to John Sundback as Senator, and Nate H. Coombs, Jas. P. Daly, and A. A. 
Allen, as Representatives for the Territorial Legislature from the Second Judi- 
cial Division. Also certificate of election to John A. Wilson, as road commis- 
sioner for the Second Judicial Division. 

MotiQii unanimously carried. 

The mottion will be the same for attorney general, also wet and dry and the 
eight-hour law, for the second division as in the first division. 

Governor. We will now take up the third judicial division, with the exception 
of the votes cast for Thomas H. Holland and Joseph Murray. 

attorney general. 
John H. Cobb 1, 091 

George B. Grigsby 1, 790 

George Schofield 854 

senator. 

George Dooley 965 

John W. Frame 1, 038 



68 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

E. F. German 731 

John Rouan 1, 172 

REPRESENTATIVES. 

Frank B. Cannon 1, 837 

Charles M. Day : 1, 408 

R. E. Hegner 777 

W. J. Henry 514 

William P. Henry 874 

R. R. Hunter 891 

Charles McCollum 1, 210 

John Noon 1, 212 

Thomas C. Price 1, 394 

KOAD SUPERVISOES. 

Joseph C. Deringer 471 

Thomas H. Jetter 1, 030 

James E. Wilson 1, 106 

Ed. Wood 1,080 

Wet, 1,418 ; dry, 2,556. 

Eight-hour law : Yes, 3,041 ; no, 381. 

Scattering, 11. 

Mr. PuGH. I move that certificates be issued to those securing the highest 
number of votes as shown in the returns. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

Governor. It is moved and seconded that certificates of election be issued to 
John Ronan, senator from the third judicial division, and to Charles M. Day, 
Thomas C. Price, and Frank B. Cannon, as representatives from the third judi- 
cial division, and to James E. Wilson as road commissioner. 

The certificates of the vote for attorney general, wet and dry, and the eight- 
hour law will be included in the general certificate from the four judicial 
divisions. 

Governor. We will now take up the fourth judicial division, without any 
exceptions. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

John H. Cobb 689 

George B. Grigsby 1,193 

George Schofield 1, 492 

SENATOR. 

Dan McCabe 557 

Thomas A. McGowan 1, 255 

Dan A. Sutherland 1, 789 

EEPEESENTATrVES. 

Z. C. Bean 302 

W. T. Burns 1,610 

Earnest B. Collins 1,202 

John W. Dunn 985 

Joe K. Green 342 

L. C. Hess 1, 5^ 

George W. Huev 301 

A. M. Kilgore 796 

George W. Ledger 406 

C. M. Monaghan 350 

Andrew Nerland 1, 391 

C. K. Snow 1, 469 

W. A. Vinal 421 

Daniel Webster 762 

Lars Westenvik 420 

ROAD SUPERVISORS. 

Peter Jensen 927 

H. H. Ross 1, 190 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. % 69 

Melvin R. Sabin 965 

Peter Steil 271 

Wet, 1,131 ; dry, 2.520. 

Eight-hour haw : Yes. 2,731 ; no, 578. 

Mr. PuGH. I move that certificates be issued to those securing the highest 
number of votes. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

GovEENOR. It is moved and seconded that certificates of election be issued 
to Dan A. Sutherland, senator from the fourth judicial division, and to W. T. 
Burns, L. C. Hess, Andrew Nerland, and C. K, Snow as representatives from 
the fourth judicial division, and to H. H. Ross as road commissioner. 

Motion unanimously caiTied. 

GovEENOE. We will compile the vote for the four judicial divisions for 
attorney general, the result being : 

John H. Cobb 3,276 

Geo. B. Grigsby 5,544 

Geo. Schofield 3, 954 

Mr. Davidson. I move that certificate be issued to Mr. Grigsby. 

Mr. PuGH. Motion seconded. 

GovERNOE. It is moved and seconded that certificate be issued to the attorney 
general elected. 

Motion unanimously carried . 

Certificate will be duly issued. 

GovEENOR. The board now will begin the tally of the votes of Kantishna, in the 
fourth judicial division, and of Flat, Discovery, and Dikeman, voting precincts 
in the fourth division. 

Notice and order of election for Rampart, Fort Gibbon, Tanana, and Koyukuk 
have all been received since our last meeting. We have not received the order 
;ind notice of election for Otter precinct as yet. I have a telegram stating 
that it has been mailed by the clerk of the court of the fourth division. It has 
l3een received by the clerk of the court and mailed, but has not yet arrived. 

DIKEMAN DISCO\'EEY FLAT KANTISHNA. 

GovEENOE. Some objections have been made to the board as to the counting 
■of votes in certain precincts. As you know the board submitted a list of 22 
■questions to the Territorial counsel as to certain alleged irregularities and 
technicalities, and I received only yesterday two opinions from the Territorial 
counsel. I have read them both and examined them as far as> time would 
permit, but Gen. Davidson and Collector Pugh have not examined them yet. 

Mr. Pugh. I move that we adjourn until to-morrow. 

Governor. Mr. Grigsby, have you any duplicate copies of these opinions you 
■iled with me yesterday? 

Mr. Grigsby. I have one or two copies ; yes. 

(Governor. Can you let Gen. Davidson and Mr. Pugh have one? 

Mr. Grigsby. Yes. 

Go^'ERNOR. The board will adjourn until to-morrow at 2 o'clock p. m. 

governor's office, MARCH 1, 1917. 

Governor. The board will come to order. There seems to be only one more 
l)recinct that has not been tallied, namely, Utica. 

Mr. Davidson. I move that we tally the Utica precinct at this time. 

Mr. Pugh. Motion seconded. 

Goveenor. It has been moved and seconded that the board proceed to compile 
and tabulate the vote for Utica in the Fairhaven recording district. 

Motion carried. 

Governor. A member of the legislature from the second division whom I met 
on the street to-day, asked me if we had tabulated the Utica precinct. He said 
that he understood that Utica voting precinct had not been regularly estab- 
lished. I want to say that the Utica voting precinct has been regularly estab- 
lished according to notice and order of election received by this office. The 
notice and order of election establishing Utica precinct in the Fairhaven re- 
■cording district is dated at Candle, August 28, 1916. The following wire from 



70 wiGi5:pBsg:AM vs. sulzeb. 

clerk of court was received : " We received a certified copy of certificate of 
election of Utica, mailed January 11." I have telegram from Adams, clerk of 
the court of the secoud division, dated January 25, stating : " Forms of oaths of 
judges of election and full printed instructions included in election papers of 
each precinct in this division forwarded to the several commissioners. Oaths 
returned for every precinct." Let it be noted that the ballots from Utica 
voting precinct are not the regular official ballots, but wei-e ballots prepared 
for use in that precinct following the form of the Australian ballot, and that 
the ballots nor any returns connected with the votes in Utica precinct do not 
show the certificate required by section 21, chapter 25 of Session Laws of 
Alaska for 1915. 

UTICA. 

Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, I have giveu a great deal of study to this ques- 
tion that we have before us, and I have come to the conclusion after due de- 
liberation that this is a ministerial body and not a judicial one. and that the 
questions of law are not for us to decide, and I therefore move that we finish 
the tally of the sheets and give certificates to all the candidates receiving the 
greatest number of votes, excepting those upon which we passed yesterday. 

Governor. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the board finish 
the compiling and tabulation of the returns, and issue certificates to those 
persons who were candidates in the late election and who have not yet re- 
ceived certificates, but who are shown to have received the greatest number of 
votes in the respective judicial divisions and in the Territory at large. Are 
you ready for the question? 

Mr. PuGH. Question. 

Mr. Grigsby. Before you put the motion, Mr. Chairman, I would like the 
privilege of notifying those who are acting for Mr. Sulzer, that they may take 
such action as necessary before a certificate is issued. I would like to ask if 
the character of this motion, if carried, would be final, before proceedings could 
be taken. There might be proceedings for injunction, enjoining the count of 
what I consider illegal ballots, and if I could have it intimated to me what 
the intended act of the board is, I could very shortly notify the board. 

Mr. DAvrosoN. I will amend my motion by saying that to-morrow morniug 
we will issue certificates, at 10 o'clock. 

Mr. Grigsby. If you put it this way, it Avould give us a better idea that it is 
the intention of the board that these votes should be counted. Tlien. if it car- 
ries, another motion would have to be made that the certificates should be issued. 
There will then be an intimation of your intention, which we can act on. If 
j'ou put that motion, I will let you know what they intend doing. 

Mr. Davidson. I will withdraw the otlier motion, and move that it is the 
intention of this board that these yotgs shall be counted and certificates issued 
in accordance therewith. 

Governor. Are you ready for the question? 

Mr. PuGH. Question. 

Governor. Gentlemen of the canvassing board, Mr. Attorney General, mem- 
bers of the legislature now present, and members of the press : I want to say 
to you, and I want to say it emphatically, that this canvassing board has been 
placed in a most perplexing position by reason of the fact that it is a partisan 
canvassing board, but speaking for myself and a majority of the board, I would 
like to state that the question of partisan politics has not entered into the de- 
liberations of this board, notwithstanding the criticisms and the gratuitous 
advice which have been received from time to time from people of both the 
dominant parties. I say for mj'self, and also for a majority of the board, that 
we have been actuated solely by a desire to perform our strict duty in 
accordance with our oaths and the expressed will of the majority of the people 
of Alaska, and signified in their vote at the general election of November 7 last. 

With some people, at least, country is above party. With some people, and a 
great many people, principle is above mere partisan, temporary gain or ad- 
vantage. I do not conceive it to be the duty of this board, and I have given 
careful thought to every phase of the vexatious question that has arisen, to enter 
into the legal aspects of the vote at the last election. As my colleague, the 
surveyor general, lias stated, this body is a ministerial body; it is not a judicial 
tribunal ; and if there be any who are not satisfied with the findings of the 
board, they have the recourse of the courts of the land, and they also have, in 
the question of the election of a Delegate to Congress, the court of last resort^ 
the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEE. \ 71 

I know something about this Territory. I know the conditions that obtain 
in its remotest precincts. During my 20 years' residence in Alaska I have 
lived in two remote precincts. I know the handicaps that are before our people 
living in such places, where the means of transportation are extremely limited, 
and I conceive it to be at least my duty to take the most liberal view of these 
conditions, to the end that the people of those precincts should not be deprived 
of their privilege of expressing their choice for members of the legislature and 
Delegate to Congress by their vote ; and they should not be deprived ol; that 
privilege. 

I do not believe it to be the province of this board to pass upon the legal 
questions, and after much thought I have taken this step. I believe I am acting 
solely in a conscientious lielief. and have satisfied myself that I am perform- 
ing a duty that I owe to the people of Alaska. 

I have every respect and confidence in the legal ability of the Attorney Gen- 
eral, and my action in this, in voting that those candidates receiving a majority 
of the votes, Irrespective of alleged illegalities or technicalities, should receive 
certificates, is not a reflection upon that officer. The Attorney General has ad- 
vised us. We have considered his advice ; and we believe, as I have stated, that 
we should not pass upon the legality of these votes : but I may here express my 
ex parte opinion that the Territorial election law is invalid. However, that is 
neither here nor there. 

In conclusion, there are judicial tribunals which may settle this question ; 
and let me express the hope, if we have "erred, that it may be settled right. If 
we have erred, I for my part am quite willing to accept the responsibility in 
every respect. 

Mr. Davidson. I just want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that I indorse every- 
thing that you have said, and that the sentiments you have expressed are my 
sentiments. 

Governor. All in favor of the motion say "Aye." 

The governor and Mr. Davidson voted aye. 

Governor. All opposed will say " Nay." 

Mr. Pugh voted nay. 

Governor. The motion is carried. 

Mr. Russell. I have in my letter file authority from .Judge Wickersham to 
represent him before this canvassing board and to employ a lawyer if neces- 
sary. He also wrote that it would be unnecessary to embarrass the board in 
any way, as he had every confidence in the integrity and honesty of this can- 
vassing board, and for that reason he did not want to appear before them to 
embarrass them in arriving at a just result. I want to thank you for the 
returns you have given me, and I want to say if at any time there is anything 
I can do. Judge Wickersham or my paper, I would be glad to do It. 

Governor. Mr. Russell, we thank you for the expression, but the majority of 
the board is not entitled to the thanks of anybody. I speak for myself and I 
am sure I speak for Gen. Davidson. We have simply done our duty as we saw 
it, and we are entitled to no thanks. 

Mr. Pugh. I move that we adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

Governor. There is nothing in the course of my official life that I have had 
that I have given more attention to, and weighing from all its various angles 
in every way, than I have to this canvass. If I am wrong, I am willing to 
suffer for it. I am willing to accept every responsibility of my action. 

The board will adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 2, 1917. 

Governor. -The board met at 10 o'clock, after the adjourned meeting of yes- 
terday. 

There were present Gov. Strong and Mr. Pugh, Mr. Davidson being absent. 

Mr. Pugh. I make a motion that we adjourn until 4 o'clock this afternoon. 

Governor. It is regularly moved and seconded that the board adjourn until 4 
o'clock this afternoon. 

Motion carried. 

Governor's Office, March 2, 1917. 

The canvassing board met at 4 o'clock p. m., all membei-s being present. 

Go\-ERNOR. The board has been served with an alternative writ of mandamus 
in the case of the Territory of Alaska on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer. and 
Charles A. Sulzer. relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles p]. Davidson, and .Tohn 
F. Pugh, defendants. 



72 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting of 
the hoard until Saturday, March 3. at 10 o'clock a. m. 

SATURDAY. MARCH .1. 

The board met at 10 o'clock a. m., all members being present. 

Mr. Davidson. I move, Mr. Cliairman, tliat we issue certificates to the two 
members of the House, namely, Phil Corrigan, of the second division, and James 
Murray, of the third division. 

Mr. PuGH. Motion seconded. 

Governor. It has been duly moved and seconded that the board proceed to 
issue certificates of election to Phil Corrigan, of the second judicial division, 
as representative in the Territorial Legislature from the second judicial division, 
and Joseph Murray, as representative in the Territorial Legislature from the 
third judicial division. 

Governor. All in favor of the motion say " Aye." All vote aye. Motion 
carried. 

Mr. PuGH. I move that the board adjourn subject to call by the chairman of 
the board. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

Governor. The motion is carried. 

governor's office, march 22, 1917. 

The canvassing board met at 9.30 a. m. Thursday, March 22, 1917, upon call 
of the governor, all members of the board being present. 

Governor. I will make this announcement, that the board has received a 
petition in the case of The Territory of Alaska on the relation of Charles A. 
Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer relator and plaintiff: v. the canvassing board, con- 
sisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson and J. E". Pugh, from the judge 
of the district court for the district of Alaska, in which the court holds that 
the ballots in the voting precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, 
Bonnifield, and Vault should be rejected, allowing the count for the precinct of 
Nizina, the court further deciding that with these votes rejected Mr. Wicker- 
sham would have 6.421 votes and Mr. Sulzer 6,440 votes, the court adding, in 
which event the certificate of election should go not to Wicker sham but to 
Sulzer. I have also to place before the board a protest, signed by Emery Valen- 
tine, against the counting of returns and the reasons therefor in about 47 vot- 
ing precincts, a copy of which is made a part of the records. 

Mr. Davidson. I move that we address a communication to the honorable 
court and attach a copy of this protest and ask for instructions as to what our 
course should be. 

Governor. What are we going to do with this protest? We have got to make 
some disposition of it. If we had counsel we could be represented by counsel. 
This board is not responsible for the filing of this protest in anyway, shape, 
or form, the question before the board is. what shall be done with it? Can 
we reject it? Have we a right to reject it? Have we a right to say to the 
l»rotestant, it is none of his business or there is no merit in his statement? I 
do not think we have. 

Mr. Pugh. If it is agreeable to the board, I will have Mr. Smiser get the case 
postponed until- to-morrow. 

Mr. Davidson. It is all right with me, 

Governor. It seems to me the best way to expedite matters would be to write 
a letter to the court and say that we have been served with this protest, that 
we do not know what to do with it. AVe have no counsel, therefore we simply 
submit it to the court. We have no reply to make to this opinion that I know 
of, and I think that is what we better do. It will relieve the board in this 
situation. 

Mr. Pugh. The point I am getting at is whether the board has a right to 
bring it into court or not. 

Governor. I do not know what to do with it. 

Mr. Pugh. My opinion is that I do not think we have a right to take it into 
court, 

Mr. Davidson. You can take anything to court. The court will tell you 
whether it is the proper place or not. 

Governor. I think it is perfectly proper to ask the court for instructions. It 
seems to me it would be the proper thing for those other people to go into court. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 73 

Tn tlie first instance. I believe tliat the canvassing hoard is the proper body 
^^•ith which to file this protest. I thinlc that is right, hnt there may be some ' 
other steps that the protestants should take. It shoiild be filed first with this 
t»oard. 

Mr. Davidson. I ask for the question. 

Governor. Question. All in favor of the question will say " Aye. 

The governor and Mr. Davidson voted aye. 

Mr. Pugh voted nay. 

Motion carried. ^, . -, , ^^ 

Governor We will prepare a letter to present to the court and ask for 
instructions in regard to the protest. Is there any action to be taken on the 
■opinion given by the court? In other words, you have no amended answer to 

make'' 

Mr.' Davidson and Mr. Pugh. No; there is no amended answer to make. 
Mr. Pugh. I move that we adjourn. 
Mr. Davidson. INIotion seconded. 

Go^-ERNOR. The board will stand adjourned subject to call. 

.1. F. A. Strong, Governor, 
Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor General, 
,T. F. Pugh, Collector of Customs, 

Canvassing Board. 

governor's office, march 24. 191". 

The canvassing board met at 10 a. m. on this date, in pursuance to a per- 
-emptorv writ of mandamus issued out of the district court, division No.-l, at 
Juneau commanding the board to forthwith convene as a canvassing board 
for the Territorv of Alaska and to reject the votes of Choggiung, Deering, 
^'ushagak, Utica.' Bonnifield. and Vault, and the court has further found " that 
Avith the exception of making the deduction aforesaid and of issuing said 
certificate said board has completed the canvass," the court commanding the 
hoard to issue a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received 
the greatest number of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that 
the certificate be made in the usual form as by law provided. 

Governor. The law provides no form of certificate and never has. 1 he 
certificate we have used has been simply one drawn up by this office. The 
purpose of the meeting has been stated, what do you want to do about it? 

Mr Pugh. I move that we start to take off the tally sheets the vote for 
Delegate as indicated in the writ, namely, Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, 
Utica, Bonnifield, Vault. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

Governor. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the tally sheets 
should be corrected to comply with the command of the court, that is, the 
votes', so far as Delegate, be eliminated— 69 votes should be deducted from .J as. 
Wickersham; 19 votes should be deducted from Chas. A. Sulzer. 

Mr. Pugh. I move that we issue certificate in the same form as we did t^AO 
years ago. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. ., - i i i 

Governor. It has been regularly moved and seconded that this board do 
therefore issue a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer in accordance with 
the above peremptorv writ of mandamus, and that also, in accordance witu 
thp aforesaid writ of mandamus, the certificate be issued in the usual torm. 

Governor. It had better be stated that while the writ declares that the certm- 
^ cate be in the usual form as by law provided, the law provides for no form. 
The form heretofore used has been one that was provided by the canvassing 
board. 

Governor. All in favor of the motion say "Aye. ' 

Motion unanimously carried. <- ^^ +i ^ 

Governor. This peremtory writ of mandamus should be made a part ot nie 

Mr Davidson. I move that the peremptory Avrit, all other writs, copies of all 

opinions, and court decisions, together with all correspondence with reference 

i-Jiereto, received by the board be made a part of the records ot this board. 

Mr. Pugh. Motion seconded. „„^„„„.e 

Governor It is moved and seconded that the peremptory writ of mandamus 

issued out of the court for the District of Alaska division No. 1. Juneau, Marcn 



74 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



23, together with all other writs, opinions, court decisions, and all correspond- 
ence relating thereto, be made a part of this record. All those in favor will 
say "Aye." Unanimously carried. 

Mr. PuGH. I move that the board adojurn. 

Mr. Davidson. Motion seconded. 

Governor. It is moved and seconded that the board adjourn. All in favor 
will say "Aye." Unanimous that the board adjourn. 

UisT OF Irregularities in Election Returns as Found by a Recheck Made by 
Representative of Hellenthal & Hellenthal. 

The following is a list of questions in the hunt for irregularities : 

1. Name of precinct. 

2. Are ballots used on white paper? 

3. Are ballots headed "Official ballots"? 

4. Are instructions at top of ballot? 

5. Are the names of candidates printed alphabetically? 

6. Do ballots contain blank lines required by law? 

7. Are names separated by blank line with space in margili for " X "? 

8. Are the words " Official ballots " printed on inside and back of ballot? 

9. Are words for " Delegate to Congress " and " Vote for one " at top of list? 

10. Are first names at top of ballot candidates for Delegate to Congress? 

11. Were official ballots u.sed? 

12. Did proper certificates accompany unofficial ballots? 

13. Was duplicate certificate of result returned with register, ballots, and 
affida.vits ? 

14. Is there anything to show that duplicate was mailed to the clerk of court 
in division where precinct was situated? 

15. Did clerk mail duplicate to governor? 

16. Was proper registration book kept and returned? 

17. Have marred ballots been returned? 

18. Have more than two marred ballots for Delegate vote been returned? 

19. Were there two judges of election? 

20. Do the returns show that judges took proper oath? 

21. Were there three clerks? 

22. Do the returns show that clerks took proper oath? 

23. Number of votes for Sulzer. 

24. Number of votes for Wickersham. 

25. Was copy of commissioners' order establishing precincts and notice of 
election forwarded to the governor's office? 

third division. 

Anchorage, No. 1. — No oaths taken by judges of election. No registration 
book. Certificate of registration not signed or filled out. 

Anchorage, N^o. 2. — No registration book. Certificate of registration not 
signed. 

Afognak. — No registration book. 

Allen. — No registration book. 

Aleutian Islands. — No registration book. 

Bonanza {Chitina district). — No registration book. 

Bonanza (White River). — No registration book. Certificates of judges not 
sworn to. 

Chignik. — No registration book. 

Chisana. — No registration book. 

Chitina. — No registration book. 

Choggiung. — No registration book. 24 ballots not official. 4 regular Demo- 
cratic ballots. ' 

Cache Creek. — No registration book. 

Cordova. — No registration book. 

Copper Center. — No registration book. 

Cliff. — No registration book. Oaths of judges not sworn to. 

Ellemar. — Oaths of judges signed, but the seal of notary not attached. 

Eiialc. — No registration book. 

Fidalgo. — No registration book. Oaths of judges not sworn to. 

Gilpatrick. — No registration book. Clerk's returns shows name of voting 
place as " Moose Pass." 



WICKERSHAM VS. SUL2ER. 75 

% 

Girdwood. — ^No registration boolv. Oaths of judges signed, but not sworn to. 
Oranite. — No registration booli. No jurat to oaths of judges. 
Koyimifi. — No election hekl. as no one to vote. 

Granby. — Judges of election sworn in by one of the judges, who was not 
sworn himself. 

Hope. — Three judges of election took oath, but were not sNNorn. 
Iliammi. — Oaths of judges sworn to by one of the judges, who was not sworn 
himself. 

Jumbo. — O. K. 

Katalla. — Election register " Kayak." Notice reads " Katalla." No registra- 
tion book. 

Kenai. — No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one judge, who 
was not sworn himself. 

Kennecott. — No registration book. 

Sinik. — Oaths of judges sworn to by notary public, but no seal of notary 
shown. 

Kodiak. — No registration book. 

Landlock. — Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges, who was not himself 
Sworn. No registration book. 

La Tottc/ie.— No registration book. Two judges sign certificate of returns. 
M a,t anil ska. —Oixths of judges sworn to by one of judges, Avho was not sworn 
himself. No registration book. 
McCarthy. — No registration book. 

McDovgaU. — No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges, 
who was not himself sworn. 

Moose Creek. — No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of 
judges, who was not himself sworn. 

Naknek. — No official ballots. Used regular Democratic ballots. Certificate 
showing why these ballots wei-e used, account not having received official bal- 
lots. No notice of election. 

Kogginng. — Memorandum from commissioner at this place says there was a 
notice posted at Kogginng notifying voters to vote at Naknek. 
, NinUehic. — No registration book. 

Nizina.- — Three judges taken oath, sworn in by one of the judges who was 
not sworn himself. 

Nushagak.— Oaths of judges sworn to by one judge who was not sworn him- 
self. No registration book. Ballots are regular -Democratic ticl^et. No certifi- 
cate to show why official ballots were not used. 

Ouzinkie. — Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges who was not sworn 
himself. No registration book. 

Roosevelt. — No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges 
who was not sworn himself. 

Seldovia. — No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges 
who was not sworn himself. 

/S'e?(;ar(Z.— Certificate of election register not signed by judges. 
Sourdough.— Oaths of judges not sw(n-n to. No registration book. 
Strelna. — No registration book. Oaths of judges signed but not sworn to. 
Stmme.— No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of judges 
who was not sworn himself. 
Susitua. — No registration book. 
Talkeetna. — No registration book. 

Teikel. — No registration book. One judge swore in the other two judges. 
Vvga.—O. K. 

Yaldez. — No registration book. 

WilJow Creek.— No registration book. Oaths of judges sworn to by one of 
judges who was not sworn himself. 
Wassila. — No registration book. 

SECOND DIVISION. 

Telegram from the clerk of the court saying that oaths of judges were 
returned to him from all the precincts in the second division. 
^lutf. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Candle. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Council. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 



Cape Nome. — No registration book 
Chmik. — No registration book. N( 



No oaths of judges. 



No oaths of judges. 



76 WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Deering. — No registration book. No tally sheet. " Republican ballots." 
Kobnk. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Koyuk. — No registration book. No oaths of .iudges. 
Nome No. 1. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Nome No. 2. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Nome No. 3. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Port Clarence. — No registration^book. No oaths of judges. 
Pilgrim River (Iron Creek). — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Taylor Creek. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Sheltou. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 

Solomon. — No registration book. No certificate of register. No oaths of 
judges. 

St. Michael No. J. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
St. Michael No. 2 (Unakleet) . — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Wadehampton No. 1. — No registration book. No oaths of judges. 
Wadehampton No. 2.— No registration book. No oaths of judges. 

FOURTH DIVISION. 

Aniak. — No registration book. (Two marred ballots for Sulzer. ) 

Broofcs.— No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one judge not sworn. 

Bomiiflelcl. — No registration book. Sample ballots iised. Letter from clerk of 
court explaining. 

Settles. — No notice and order of election. No registration book. 

Chena. — No registration book. 

Cripple. — No i-egistration book. No certificate or copy of election register. 
Two oaths of judges sworn to, dated October 16, 1916 ; one oath sworn to. dated 
November 6. 1912. 

Chicken Creek. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one judge not 
sworn. 

Circle. — No registration book. 

Coldfoot. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. No 
notice and order of election. 

Deadwood. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Eureka. — No registration book. 

Eagle. — O. K. 

Ester. — Two judges sworn ; one judge not sworn. 

Fairbanks.- — No registration book. 

Fairbanks Creek.— 'No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Fort Yvkon. — No registration book. 

Franklin. — No registration book. 

Fish Creek. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Fort Gibbon. — No notice and order of election. Telegram from commissioner 
says was issued August 28, forwarded by mail January 25. No registration 
book. 

Greenstone. — No registration book. No certificate of registration. Two 
judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Graehl. — No registration book. 

Gilmore. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn, 

Georgetoiim. — No registration book. Three judges sign oath, but none are 
sworn. 

Hot Springs. — No registration book. Certificate of registration not filled out 
or signed by the judges. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Iditarod. — No registration book. 

Jack Wade. — No registration book. 

Louden. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Lotver Cleary. — O. K. 

Little Eldorado. — Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Lower Dome. — Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. One marred ballot. 

Lower Goldstream. — Two judges sworn. No registration book. 

Long. — No registration book. No copy of clerk's returns. 

Mouth of Crooked. — ^No registration book. No clerk's copy. Two judges 
sworn ; one not sworn. 

Moose Creek. — No registration book. 

Miller House. — No registration book. 

McGrath. — No registration book. Election register made up on plain ,paper 
not signed by judges, but no affidavit. Supplies did not arrive in time. No 
oaths of judges. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. * 77 

l^enan. — No registration book. Two judges sworu; one not sworn. 

Nulato. — 'No registration book. 

Ophir. — No registration book. 

Poor man. — No registration boolv. 

Pedro. — No registration book. 

Railroad. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Rampant.— No registration book. 

Richardson. — Clerk of court wired that notice was on tlie way. 

Rtiby. — No registration book. 

Salchaket. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Steel Creek. — No registration book. 

Salchaket. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworu. 

Tan ana. — No registration book. 

Tolstoi. — No registration book. Certificate of election register not filled out 
or signed. 

Tokotna. — No registration book. Certificate of registration not signed by 
judges. Nineteen official ballots. Twenty-three unofficial written on type- 
writer. Affidavit as to why unofficial ballots were used. No oaths of judges. 

Upper Cleary. — Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Upper Dome. — No registration book. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Upper Goldstream. — No registration book. 

Vault.- — Judges do not sign election returns. No registration book. Clerk's 
duplicate shows that the returns were signed by the judges on the copy sent 
him. 

Woodcliopper. — No registration book. Two judges sworn; one not sworn. 

West Fork. — Certificate of registration not filled out or signed. No registra- 
tion b'ook. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Woodshopper (Tofty) [Hot Springs district). — No registration book. Two 
judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Wiseman. — -No registration book. 

FIRST DIVISIOIK. 

There will be no duplicate returns from the clerks of the court, as the clerk in 
the first division did not provide for these returns. 

Beaver Falls. — Certificate of registration not filled out. 

Charcoal Point. — Three judges signed the oath, but were not sworn. No 
election register returned. One vote for Wickersham. Voter signed his name 
on ballot (Fred Smith). Counted in the returns. 

Craig. — No election register. Two judges sworn ; one not sworn. 

Chichagoff. — No election register. 

Chilkat. — Five ballots rejected by election board, one for the reason that 
voter wrote his name opposite the man he voted for. Not recorded in election 
returns on account of ballots being marked on the right side ; one on account of 
voter voting for six representatives instead of four. No election register. 

Douglas. — No election register. Certificate of register not filled out. 

Dolomi.- — No election register. Two judges sworn, one not sworn. 

Douglas No. 2. — Three spoiled ballots. Not cast nor counted. 

Eagle. — No election register. Three judges sign but not sworn. 

Tenakec. — No election register. 

Gold Creek. — No election register. Three ballots thrown out, account voted 
'or more than called for. * 

Haines. — No election register. Two judges sworn, two clerks sworn. 

Hoonah. — No election register. Two judges sworn, one not sworn. 

Hadley. — No election register. One judge only signs the registration book. 

Juneau No. 2. — Election returns are not signed by the judges. No election 
register. Total votes not carried forward nor signed by judges. 

Juneau No. 3. — Registration book not certified to. No election register. Two 
judges sworn, one not sworn. 

Jualin. — No election register. 

Jaulapa. — Two judges sworn, one not sworn. 

Ketchikan. — Certificate of registration not filled out. 

Kassan.- — Certificate of registration not signed by judges. Three judges 
signed, but not sworn to. 

Kake. — No election register. 

Loring. — Two judges sworn, one not sworn. Election returns not sworn to. 
One sample ballot voted ; note on ballot to the effect that judges marked the 
ballot. 



TS WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Mendenliall. — Certificate of register not filled out. Two judges sworn, one not. 

Petersburg. — No election register. 

Perseverance. — Certificate of registration not filled out or signed. 

Skagivay. — O. K. 

Shakan. — Certificate of registration booli: not filled out. Two judges sworn, 
one not sworn. No election register. 

Sheep Creek. — No election register. Two marred ballots. Two judges sworn, 
one not sworn. 

Salmon Creek. — No election register. Two judges sworn, one not sworn. 

ScoiD Bay. — Certificate of registration is not filled out. Two judges sworn, 
one not. 

Siifca.— No election register or clerk's duplicate. 

Sulzer. — Two judges sworn, one not sworn. 

Tread'well.- — No election register. 

Wrangell.—No election register. 

Windham. — Registration book shows 27 ; only 11 voted. Two judges sworn, 
one not sworn. 

No election held at Chatham. Dundas, Gypsum, Warm Springs, Yakitat. 

Juneau, Axaska, February 19, 1911. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor and Chairman of Canvassing Board, 

Juneau, Alaska. 
Sib: I have your communication of February 16, 1917, submitting to me for 
my opinion certain questions arising out of irregularities in the returns of the 
general election held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

Three of the questions propounded by you I consider of sufficient importance 
to malve the subject of a separate opinion. I he^e^^■ith submit uiy conclusions 
with respect to the other questions submitted by your board. 

1. Where judges of election failed to execute oath. 

2. Where one judge swore the other two, but was not himself sworn. 

3. Where all three judges signed oath form, and one signed the jurat. 

4. Where all three judges signed oath form, but no one signed the jurat. 

5. Where all three judges signed oath form, and two of them signed the jurat. 
The failure of election judges to execute oath is an immaterial irregularity 

in the conduct of the election which does not affect the result, the courts unani- 
mously holding that notwithstanding the failure of these officials to take oath 
and otherwise qualify, nevertheless if they perform functions of judges, their 
acts are legal as the acts of de facto officers. (Whipley v. McKune, 12, Cal., 
362 ; Sprague v. Norway, 31 Cal., 173 ; Saunders v. Lacks, 142 Mo., 2.35 ; Heyfron 
V. Mahoney, 9 Mont., 497 ; Stimson v. Sweeney, 17 Nev., 309 ; People v. Cook, 59 
Am. Dec, 451. ) 

6. Where no registration book was used. 

7. Where registration book was used, but names of voters were written 
therein by member of election board instead of by the voters themselves. 

8. Where registration book was not certified by election board. 

9. Where but one judge signed certificate to registration book. 

I assume that this refers to the registration book prescribed by chapter 25 
of the Session Laws of Alaska, 1915. If so, my opinion is that the failure to 
use the registration book was not an irregularity vital to the legality of the 
election. The registration provided for by the act of the legislature, chapter 25, 
Session Laws \)t Alaska, 1915, is not a registration prior to the election and 
not one that affects the qualifications of voters, but simply a method provided 
for the conduct of the election and to prevent illegal voting by making any 
false statements of the person offering to vote with regard to his qualifications 
punishable by fine or imprisonment. That part of the statute referring to 
registration is not mandatory in form, and as it does not relate to matters 
that are essential elements or affects the merits of the election, it is probably to 
be considered directory only. (Bowers v. Smith. 17 S. W., 762.) 

Furthermore, the provisions of chapter 25, relating to registration, are not 
strictly within the scope of the act as expressed in its title. This, however, is 
the snbject of another question. 

10. Where no register of voters was used in addition to the registration 
book. 

By section 397 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska the two judges of election who 
act as clerks shall each keep a correct duplicate register and enter therein the 
names of the voters and the fact that they have voted, etc. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. * 79 

Section 22 of chapter 25 of the Session LaAvs of Alaslva. 1915, provides that 
the clerk of the conrt shall furnish each polling- place with a book known as 
the registration book, in Avhich each voter shall sign his name before voting. 
The provisions of section 22 of chapter 25 do not do away with the necessify 
for the register of voters required by the provisions of section 397 of the Com- 
piled Laws of Alaska ; but in case of a failure of the election clerks to keep 
such register, the registration book required by the legislative act, if containing 
the names of the voters, would be held as sufficient compliance with section 397 
and probably be held equivalent to said register required by that act. The fact 
that the same is not in duplicate is an immaterial irregularity and would not 
affect the result of the election. 

I therefore advise you that in cases where the only register of voters is in 
the registration book provided for by the legislative act, the returns, if regular 
in other respects, should be canvassed and the votes counted. 

11. Where election board did not make a duplicate return or certificate of the 
election and forward same to the clerk of the district court. 

You are advised that this omission is immaterial except in case of loss of 
the returns mailed direct to the governor, the evident purpose of this provision 
being to prevent the disfranchising of voters on account of loss of the return. 

12. Where (as in the second division) no oaths of election officers were with 
the returns sent to the governor's office, but clerk of court claims to have fur- 
nished oath forms to all boards, and that their oaths are on file in his office. 

This is an immaterial irregularity, as explained with reference to the first five 
questions. 

13. Where election board did not fill in the certificate of result nor sign 
same. 

Section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, provides that the election board at 
each polling place shall, after canvassing the votes, make out in duplicate a 
certificate of the result of said election, specifying the number of votes in words 
and figures cast for each candidate, etc. 

This section does not provide that this certificate of the result must be in the 
back of the register or registration book, or be in any book. There must, how- 
ever, be some certificate substantially conforming to section 402, or there would 
be no authentication of the returns or declaration of the result of the election. 
If such certificate does not accompany the returns, they can not be counted 
unless a substitute has been received from the clerk of the court, or unless such 
defect is cured by the certificate being received before the canvassing board 
ad.iourn it may be accepted and the returns canvassed, or if received with the 
returns but not signed, and the judges appear and offer to sign the same, they 
should be permitted to do so, this being simply a matter of the authenticity of 
the returns and a statement of the result. 

There is no distinction between questions 13 and 14, as iu both cases there 
was a failure of the board to sign the certificate, consequently there was no 
certificate. The authorities generally hold that this certificate is indispensable. 
(People r. Nordheim. 99 111.. 553; Perry v. Whittaker, 71 N. C, 475; Simon r. 
Durham, 10 Oreg., 52 ; Opinions of Justices, 68 Maine, 582 ; Lawrence County v. 
Schmaulhausen, 123 111., 321. ) 

15. Where only record of result is the tally sheets sent in by the board, only 
one of Avhich is certified. 

If properly certified, so as to substantially comply with the requirements of 
section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, and clearly constituting a declaration 
of the result and authentication of the returns, I have no doubt it would be 
sufficient, even though not iu duplicate. The test is whether the returns are 
sufficiently authenticated so that the canvassing board can determine that they 
are genuine returns. If the return lacks these requisites, it should either be 
corrected if an opportunity is offered, or if not corrected should be rejected. 

16, 17, and 18. These questions are made the subject of another opinion. 

19. Where " workers' ballots " were used instead of official ballots (the ballots 
used bearing the name of a political party) and explanation made by election 
board as to their use. 

Where the explanation made by the election board is iu compliance with sec- 
tion 21 of chapter 25, Session Laws of Alaska, 1915, the ballots should be 
counted. The fact that the ballots bore the name of a political party is no 
reason for rejecting them. Where the law permits' the voter to use other than 
official ballots, they do not have to be in the form prescribed by the legislative 
act, but are sufficient if they substantially comply with the congressional act, 
and under the congressional act distinguishing marks or party designation would 
not be a material irregularity. There is no reason whatever for rejecting the 



80 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

ballots on account of the party designation, and no authority can be cited in 
support of their rejection. 

20. Where election returns are in but canvassing board has not received cer- 
tified copy of commissioner's order and notice of election. 

The certified copy of commissioner's order and notice of election is not a. 
part of the retui'n, and the failure of the commissioner to forward the same ta 
the governor of Alaska, as required by section 396 of the Compiled Laws of 
Alaska, does not prevent the canvassing of the returns if the canvassing board 
is satisfied from other information that the returns ai'e from regularly estab- 
lished precincts. 

21. Is chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, valid? 

Chapter 25, 1915 Session Laws, is valid in so far as it provides for a form 
of official ballot and matters germane to such subject. In other respects it is 
of at least doubtful validity for the reason that the organic act provides that 
no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its 
title. The title to chapter 25 is "An act to provide official ballots for elections 
in the Territory of Alaska." 

22. In what respects does chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, change the pro- 
cedure of elections in the matter of a duplicate register of voters, duplicate re- 
turn by election boards, certification of returns, etc., as that procedure was 
outlined in the act providing for the election of a Delegate to Congress? 

Chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, does not change the procedure of elections, 
in the matter of a duplicate register of voters, duplicate returns by election 
boards, certification of return, as that procedure was outlined in the act pro- 
viding for the election of a Delegate to Congress, except that by section 21 of 
chapter 25 a certain additional certificate is under certain- circumstances made 
an essential part of the returns. This is the certificate required where official 
ballots are not received in the precinct. Chapter 25 is valid as to all provisions 
prescribing a form of official ballot and is valid as to the provisions of section 
21 thereof. 

Respectfully, 

Geokge B. Geigsby, Territorial Counsel. 

Juneau, Alaska, February, 19, 1917. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor, and Cliainnan of Canvassing Board, 

Juneau, Alaska. 
Sir : I have your communication of February 16, 1917, submitting to me 
certain questions upon which an opinion is desired by the convassing board now 
engaged in canvassing the returns of the general election held in the Territory 
of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

Among the questions submitted are the following, which I deem of sufficient 
importance to make the subject of a separate opinion. 

16. Where unofficial ballots were used and no explanation made by election 
board as to why they were used. 

17. Where sample ballots were used (furnished by the clerk of the omit) 
instead of the official ballots, and no explanation liiveii. 

18. Where " workers' ballots " were used instead of the official ballots, and 
no explanation made by election board. 

These questions may be considered together, as there is no difference 
between the irregularities in each, there being no distinction .between a case 
where workers' ballots or sample ballots were used and one where any other 
form of unofficial ballots were used. 

The case of Boyd v. Mills, 53 Ivans., 594, makes a distinction where sample 
ballots are used, but in view of the mandatory provisions of the statutes 
hereinafter discussed I am of the opinion that such distinction does not exist 
under the laws of Alaska. 

The returns from the precincts where the above irregularities occur consists 
of the certificates of the result of the election, the register of voters, and the 
ballots cast. These returns were properly sealed up and mailed to the gov- 
ernor of Alaska. It appears, however, on an examination of these returns by 
the canvassing board, that the ballots \ised were not the official ballots pro- 
vided for by the act of the Territorial Legislature of April 27, 1915, chapter 
25, Laws of Alaska, 1915, but were prepared by the voters or some person for 
them and failed in practically all essentials to conform to the style of ballot 
prescribed by the act. In other words, in the precincts in question there was a 
total disregard of the provisions of the legislative act. The territorial act 
tibove referred to provides in substance that the clerks of the district court in 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEB. ^ 81 

each judicial division sliall prepare tlie ballots for use in their respective 
divisions in all elections. Then follow certain directions as to the style of 
the ballot, the color and dimensions of the paper to be used, the provisions for 
blank spaces for the insertion of names of candidates not printed upon the 
ballots, and other provisions common to the Australian ballot law. 

Section 21 of this territorial act provides as follows : 

"That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall, in this event, certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accom- 
pany and be made a part of the election returns." 

All authorities are agreed that the controlling purpose of the Australian 
ballot law is to secure a secret ballot, to the end that the voter may fully and 
freely vote for his choice of candidates uninfluenced by threats or intimidation 
and that corruption of his vote may be prevented. There is a great confusion 
of authorities as to whether such laws are to be construed as mandatory in 
all respects, or merely directory, some courts going to the extreme in holding: 
the ballot legal, though not in statutory form, being inclined, in the absence 
of proof of fraud, to subordinate the requirements of the statutes to the ascer- 
taining of the intention of the voter and the will of the majority. This view 
of the law is concisely expressed in the case of Horsefall et al. v. School Dis- 
trict. 143 Mo. App., .545, as follows-: 

" We think it may now be said to be the established rule in this State, as it 
is generally in other jurisdictions, that when a statute expressly declares any 
particular act to be essential to the validity of an election, then the act must 
be performed in the manner provided, or the election will be void. Also, if 
the statute provides specifically that a ballot not in a prescribed form shall not 
be counted, then the provision is mandatory, and the courts will enforce it; 
but if the statute merely provides that certain things shall be done, and doe.s 
not prescribe what results shall follow if those things are not done, then the 
provision is directly merely, and the final test as to the legality of either 
the election or the ballot is whether or not the voters have been given an oppor- 
tunity to express, and have fairly expressed, their will." 

The foregoing rule has been applied in many casses where the ballots pro- 
vided by those whose duty it was to prepare them, did not strictly conform to 
the statutory provisions. In some of the cases the ballots Avere only slightly 
irregular, and there is a hopeless confusion of authorities as to what depart- 
ures from the statutory requirements are and what are not fatal to the validitv 
of the ballots. 

I have been unable to find any case, however, holding the votes legal where 
the use of official ballots was entirely dispensed with. 

The effect of applying the rule announced in Horsefall v. School District to 
the case before this board, where no official ballots were used at all, would be 
to establish a precedent encouraging an absolute disregard by both voters and 
officials of the provisions of the law as to the form of the ballot. 

The territorial act. as before stated, directs that the clerk of the district 
court shall prepare the ballots for use in all elections, and it prescribes the 
form of ballot. It does not in express terms provide that none but the official 
ballots shall be counted. It does, however, so provide bv implification for 
section 21 of the act quoted above declares when and under what circumstances 
other than the official ballots may be used. By the common rule of construc- 
tion, the well-worn maxim, " Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," applies 
here, and the fact that the legislature has expressly declared that under cer- 
tain circumstances other than official ballots may be used clearlv shows an 
intention that they shall not be used except under the circumstances detailed 
Even conceding the Horsefall case to express the true rule, our statute would 
nevertheless be construed as mandatory. 

_ The Horsefall case, however, is not supported by the best authoritv. Con- 
Bidering the purpose of the Australian ballot law, it is plain that its obiect 
would be defeated in the directions as to the preparation and form of the 
ballot were not regarded as mandatory. The employment of express words 
IS not always necessary to give a law a mandatorv character 

The following from the case of Board v. Dill, 110 Pacific.' 1107 a case in- 
vovmg-^ questions similar to those here discussed, clearlv expressed the true 
rule. After reciting the facts, the court states: expiessea tne tiue 

13289—17 6 



82 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

" By this it will be seen that we are again confronted with the eternal moot 
of whether an election statute is mandatory or directory. The perpetuity 
and virtue of popular government can only be secured and maintained by pro- 
viding for the independence of the electors upon whose consent and will it 
exists. Widespread charges of improper influences, bribery, and corruption 
committed on the occasion of elections in many of the States of the Union, 
bringing in their wake defeat of the popular will and success to the corrupt 
schemes of designing men, brought about the election reform known as the 
Australian ballot system. Elections prior to it were held by an open ticket 
system, under which secrecy was almost if not quite impossible, and dependent 
or corrupt voters were equally at the mercy and under the control of those 
who would use them for corrupt ends. 

The court of appeals of New York, iu the case of People r. Board of County 
Canvassers, 129 N. Y. 395, 29 N. E. 327, 14 L. R. A. 624, says : 

" We know that the principal mischief which the statute was intended to 
suppress was the bribery of voters at elections, which had become an intolerable 
evil, and this was to be accomplished by so framing the law as to enable if 
not compel the voter to exercise his privilege in absolute secrecy. 

The Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of Detroit v. Rush (82 Mich., 
532 ; 46 N. W., 951 ; 10 L. R. A., 171) says : 

"The secrecy of the ballot is the- great safeguard to the purity of elections. 
The vote by ballot implies secrecy. This secrecy should not be confined to the 
time of depositing the ballot. It should accompany the voter through all the 
steps provided for the preparation of his ballot. Only in this way can he be 
freed from all intimidation, improper influences, reproach, and animadversion. 
When all knowledge of how he voted is the voter's own secret, iinless he chooses 
to divulge it, he is fully protected, and a free and honest vote will very uniformly 
be the result." 

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in the case of Pearson v. Bruns- 
wick County (91 Va., 322; 21 S. E.. 483) says: 

" The object is to relieve the voter from every influence inimical to a free 
and deliberate exercise of the right of suffrage, to free him from all solicitation 
and annoyance, and to leave him perfectly free agent to vote as to him seems 
best. These provisions seem to be not only reasonable, but well adapted to secure 
the end in view, so far as the voter is concerned who is able to prepare his own 
ballot. He goes to the judges, he receives an ofHcial biillot printed by authority 
of the State, upon which is found every office to be filled and every candidate for 
that office, whose name has been filed in accordance with the requirement of the 
law, and he retires to a booth where he is curtained off and secluded from all the 
"»rld. No eye can see him and no ear can hear him ; no evil agency can approach 
him ; and, with these environments, he prepares his ballot, folds and delivers it 
to the judge who, in his presence, places it in the ballot box. The general scheme 
of the law is to secure the independence of the voter by secluding him within an 
isolated booth, surrounded by a neutral zone, within which none may enter save 
those charged with conducting the election." 

Thus it is seen that the general scheme of the system is to secure the inde- 
pendence of the voter by requiring him to cast his vote in secret. 

" Secrecy is the fundamentrd underlying iirim.-ny essentijil of the system, and is 
the one element and condition which, paramount to all others, can not be de- 
stroyed Avithout destroying the reform intended and reestablishing the evils it 
was designed to correct. Statutes which make, even incidentally, for its preser- 
vation and inviolability are seldom directory, and without exception, where the 
language will admit of it, are held to be mandatory." 

In Tuntland v. Noble (138 N. W., 292) the court disapproves of the opinion of 
the Horsefall case, and condenses what seems to be the weight of authority, as 
follows : 

" What seems to xis to be the true rule is laid down in the following from the 
opinion of the court in the CMse of Perty r. Hackney (90 N. W., 485) : 

" ' The statute under consideration is, then, not in terms mandatory, but it is 
well settled that the employment of express words is not always necessary to 
give it that character. Where the aim and purpose of the lawmaking power 
would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner 
did not imply an inhibition to do it in any other, no doubt can be maintained as to 
the mandatory charMCter of the statute.' " (23 Am. and Eng. End. of Law, pp. 
453, 454, and cases cited.) 

The proper test for distinguishing mandatory from directory provisions of 
the elections laws is well stated by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Parvin v. 
Weinberg (80 N. E., 790), as follows: 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. ^ 83 

" If a statute expressly declares any particular act to be essential to the 
Talidity of an election or that its omission shall render the election void, the 
courts whose duty it is to enforce the law as they find it must so hold, whether 
the particular act in question goes to the merits or affects the result of the 
election or not, for such a statute is mandatory and the court can not enter 
into the question of its policy ; on the other hand, if a statute simply provides 
that certain things shall be done within a particular time or in a particular 
manner and does not declare that their performance shall be essential to the 
validity of an election, they will be regarded as mandatory if they affect the 
merits of the election and as directory only if they do not affect its merits." 

We also approve the following from the case of Jones v. State es rel. Wilson 
(55 N. E., 229) : 

"All iirovisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought 
before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose, but after election all 
should be held directory only, in support of the results unless of a character 
to affect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote or to the 
ascertainment of the result, or unless the provisions affect an essential element 
of the election, or unless it is expressly declared by the statute that the par- 
ticular act is essential to the validity of an election." 

Applying the law as enunciated in the opinion quoted, many irregularities in 
an election proceeding, including deviations from the form of official ballots, 
may be disregarded as not affecting the merits of an election and not affecting 
an essential element of the election, being matters of form rather than of sub- 
stance. The courts go a great way to sustain the Validity of elections, the 
conduct of which is in many respects far from incompliance with the regulations 
imposed by statute. 

But when we consider the object of the Australian ballot law it is at once 
apparent that a total disregard of its provisions would entirely defeat the pur- 
pose of the lawmakers. Slight departures from those directions prescribed 
probably would not be vital, but to entirely dispense with them would certainly 
" both affect the merits and affect an essential element of the election " ; that is, 
the element of secrecy, which is the primary object sought to be attained by 
the law. 

" This being true, a court will not investigate to ascertain whether or not 
the disregarding of this essential element," going as it does to " the merits of 
the election," did in fact in a given case affect the apparent result of the elec- 
tion." (Tuntland v. Noble, 138 N. W., 292.) 

In other words, it is enough that its necessary tendency would be to aft'ect 
the merits of the election. 

The following also expressed the general rule : 

" The statutes usually prescribe the size and form of the ballots* and the 
kind of paper on which they are to be printed, and prohibit any marks, figures, 
or devices upon which one can be distinguished from another. These statutes, 
being designed to preserve the secrecy of the ballot and to prevent fraud, in- 
timidation, and bribery, will generally be considered mandatory ; and this will 
be so in all cases where the statutes provide that a ballot varying from the 
requirements of the law shall not be countd. But if this provision is lacking, 
while it is the duty of the election officers to refuse to receive the ballots if the 
deviations from the law are manifest, if they have been received they should 
not be rejected if the variations are but trifling. It is necessarily impossible 
to lay down any general rule by which to determine what is a material varia- 
tion from the required form, within the meaning of said statutes, and each 
cnse must be determined from its own facts and circumstances." (Am. & Eng. 
Enc, 2d ed., vol. 10, p. 726.) 

This board is not confronted with a case where there is a slight deviation 
from the regulations prescribed by law, but where there is a total disregard 
thereof. 

My conclusion therefore is that the Alaska territorial act is mandatoi-y in so 
far as it relates to the manner of preparation and form of the ballot. It follows, 
therefore, that ballots cast not prepared by the proper oflScials and substantially 
conforming to the statute are illegal. In the precincts in question there was a 
total failure to comply with the provisions of the statute, and the ballots cast 
in these precincts therefore are invalid and can not be counted unless some 
other provision of the statute authorize their being accepted as valid. It 
therefore remains to consider the application of section 21 of the territoi'ial 
act, to the question submitted. Again, quoting section 21 : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received, the voters are not permitted to write or print 



84 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

their ballots, but the judges of election shall, in this event, certify to the fact 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns." 

The ballots included with the returns from the precincts in question are not 
and do not purport to be the official ballots, but were prepared by tlie voters 
themselves or by some person tor th.em. 

This by section 21 is allowed to be done " where no official ballots have been 
received." 

Section 21 is a proviso creating an exception from the operation of the 
statute. Such provisos must be strictly construed. This is the general rule. 
(36 Cyc, 1162, and cases cited.) 

Construing the election act as mandatt)ry, the law of Alaska, which is to be 
applied to the case under consideration, is in effect as follo^^'s : 

" None but official ballots shall be voted except in precincts where no official 
ballots have been received." 

Section 21 further provides that in the event no oflicial ballots have been 
received the judges of election shall certify to the facts wliich prevent the use 
of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany and be made a part 
of the election returns. The purpose of the latter provision is apparent. With- 
out the certificate of the judges the canvassing board would have no means of 
ascertaining the reason the official ballots were not used. It has been suggested 
that the very fact that no official ballots whatever were used in the precincts in 
question would give rise to the presumption that none were received. There Is 
no such legal presumption. Very possibly this might have been the case ; pos- 
sibly it might not have been. To assume the existence of such a presumption 
would entirely nullify the act and dispense with the necessity of using official 
ballots at all. The truth is, there is no presumption of fact one way or the other. 
The nonofficial ballot is prima facie illegal, and not not be counted, except under 
certain circumstances, to A^'it, where no official ballots have been received. On 
the face of the returns from the precincts in question the ballots cast are all 
illegal, because not official ballots. 

The canvassing board has been furnished A^ath no evidence at all of the ex- 
istence of any legal reason why official balk)ts were not used. The law provides 
but one method of furnishing evidence of such reason, and that is by the cer- 
tificate of tlie judges which " must accompany and be made a part of the returns." 
This board has no such certificate before it, nor any other evidence of the reason 
for the use of nonofficial ballots. 

The word " must " is ordinarily to be construed as imperative and mandatory, 
and always to be so construed unless the intention of the legislature is apparently 
to the contrary. (36 Cyc, 1160.) 

No reason can be conceived for construing it otherwise in the above statute. 
The word " must " used in the statute necessarily implies certain consequences 
if the statute is not complied with. The implication in this case is that unless 
a certain certificate accompanies and is made a part of the returns, where non- 
official ballots are used, they must be rejected. Whether or not the facts were 
that no official ballots were received in the precincts involved is a question which 
can not be inquired into by this canvassing board, as the law prescribes what 
shall be evidence of this fact, so far as the canvassing board is concerned, and 
there being no evidence on the subject before the board the ballots must be 
considered illegal and the vote rejected. Whether or not the vote might be 
counted in a contest before the proper tribunal, in case legal evidence was re- 
ceived of the existence of circumstances which the statute says legalizes the use 
of nonofficial ballots, is a question with which the canvassing board is not 
concerned. Undoubtedly if the returns were submitted in their present form 
they would be rejected by any tribunal having jurisdiction to try a contest. 

This situation must not be confused with cases where the election judges 
failed to send all the documents, such as ballots, tally sheets, register of voters, 
oaths of judges, necessary affidavits, etc., which constitute election returns. 
Mere omissions of this kind, by the great weight of authority, do not necessarily 
vitiate the returns. The present situation is different. Here is no failure to 
send any certain document which is by law a part of the returns. In this case 
there is no reason to assume the existence of the certificate lacking. There is 
no reason to assume the existence of the reasons Avhich would make the cer- 
tificate a necessary part of the returns. Assuming the existence of the reasons 
and of the certificate, still the statute requiring the latter to accompany the 
returns would have to be construed as mandatory. But we can assume neither. 
We have returns Qomplete in all respects showing the vote prima facie illegal 
and void, on account of the use of the illegal ballots. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZER. 85 

Ex parte Riggs, 29 S. E., 645, is similar to tlie case before tliis board. In 
the Riggs case the canvassing board rejected certain ballots not conforming to 
the statute. The court said : 

" The lawmaking power having declared that voting shall be by ballot, and 
having prescribed the form of such ballots, and, what is more important, having 
in unmistakable terms forI)idden a ballot which is not in the prescribed form 
from being counted, we can not liold that the board of State canvassers com- 
mitted any error in obeying this express mandate of the body intrusted with 
the power to make the laws. We have neither the power nor the disposition to 
inquire into the wisdom of policy of such a law, for ' ita lex scripta est ' is 
sufficient for us and precludes further inquiry." 

To be sure in the Riggs case, the South Carolina statute provided expressly 
that no ballot of any description other than that provided by law should be 
counted, but we have already reached the conclusion that notwithstanding the 
absence of this express provision our statute is none the less mandatory, and 
once conceded to be mandatory it inhibits the use of nonofflcial ballots just as 
effectively as if it in expi-ess terms stated that thej^ could no be counted. The 
Riggs case above quoted is therefore exactly in point. 

Section 403 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska provides as follows : 

" The governor, surveyor general, and the collector of customs for Alaska 
shall constitute a canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska to canvass and 
compile in \^riting the votes specified in the certificates of election returned to 
the governor from all the several election precincts as aforesaid." 

The question has been raised as to the duty of the board to consider anything 
■else in making their canvass than the election certificates referred to in the 
iibove section. 

Section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, provides what shall constitute the 
election returns. The ballots are not, as in many States, separately sealed up, 
but are inclosed in the same envelope with the accompanying documents. All 
these documents taken together constitute the election returns. The board 
meets for the purpose of canvassing and compiling the vote specified in the 
certificates. To "canvass" has been defined by Webster to hean "to examine 
thoroughly, to search or scrutinize." The Standard Dictionary defines the word 
" to examine searchingly, go over in detail, scrutinize, sift — as to canvass the 
vote in an election ; an official scrutiny, as a canvass of votes at an election." 

"A canvass of an election includes not only the counting of the votes by the 
inspectors, but the record of the count by the poll clerks upon the tally sheet, so 
that the tally sheet is a substantial part of a canvass." (In re Stewart, 48 
N. Y. Supp., 957.) 

"A canvass is but a count of the ballots, a convenient and expeditious method 
•of determining the choice of the people as disclosed by the ballots. As between 
the ballots themselves and a canvass of the ballots, the ballots are controlling." 
(Hudson V. Solomon, 19 Kans., 177.) 

" Canvass as applying to an election would seem to impose an obligation beyond 
that of merely counting the ballots and comparing the statements of the man- 
■agers. Canvassing implies searching, scrutiny, investigation, examination." 
(State V. Nerland, 7 S. C, 246.) 

Canvass as applied to electron returns does not necessarily mean to count 
the ballots. To canvass the returns and to canvass the vote, are frequently used 
synonymously. (People r. Rown of Snusalito, 39 Pac, 937.) 

It may be conceded that the almost universal rule is that a canvassing board 
•can not go behind the returns to look for illegalities or fraud, in the conduct of 
the election, nor should it consider trifling defects in the returns, or slight 
omissions of the returning officers. The duties of canvassing boards are purely 
ministerial ; they are to consider only what appears on the face of the returns. 
Even in case of doubt as to the legality or illegality of certain ballots, they are 
not to go behind the certificate of the judges of election. 

But when the returns show on their face that all of the votes in a given 
precinct are beyond question illegal, the ballots having been prepared with total 
disregard of the provisions of the election law, they are bound to reject them 
where the certificate is lacking which would legalize such ballots. Section 402 
of the Compiles Laws, designating what shall constitute returns, must be con- 
strued together with section 21, chapter 25, of the Session Laws of Alaska, 1915, 
which latter section amends section 402 to the extent of making the certificate 
referred to therein an essential i)art of the returns. 

Ex parte Riggs, 29 S. E., 645, cited above, is authority for the canvassing 
board to reject returns where the ballots are illegal. It was also held in Missis- 



86 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

sippi that where the ballots which were required to accompany the returns 
showed upon their face that they were illegal, the canvassers might reject them 
in the count. (Oglesby v. Sigman. 58 Miss., 502.) 

This case seems to be exactly in point, as under the laws of Alaska the bal- 
lots must accompany the returns and are not separately sealed. 

In this case, the returns from the precincts where the irregularities are such 
as described in questions 16. 17. and IS. show prima facia an absolute total dis- 
regard of the territorial act in the use of the illegal ballots not explained by any 
evidence of any kind, and you are advised that they must be rejected. 

The burden should be upon him who relies upon such votes to furnish the 
evidence establishing their validity before the proper tribunal. In the mean 
time it is the duty of the canvassing board to give effect to the will of the ma- 
jority who have complied with the law by delivery of certificate of election to 
the candidates receiving a majority of legal votes. 
Respectfully, 

George B. Grigsby, 

Territorial Counsel. 

United States of America, 

District of Alaska, Division No. /, .s-s.' 

I. the undersigned, clerk of the district court for the District of Alaska, 
Division No. 1, do hereby certify that the hereto attached is a full, true, and 
correct copy of the original alternative writ of mandamus in 1593-A entitled 
The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and i)laintiff, c. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
defendants, of record in my office. 

In testimony whereof I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Juneau, Alaska, this 2d day of March. 1917. 

[SEAL.] J. W. Bell, Clerk. 

ALTERNATIVE WRIT OE MANDAMLTS. 

In the District Court of the Territory of Alaska Division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A-. Sulzer, 
relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 
consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles F. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, de- 
fendants. 

To the Canvassing Board of the Territory of Alaska, constituted for the purpose 
of canvassing the vote case at the election held on November 7, 1916, and to 
J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, the persons consti- 
tuting said board, Greeting: 

I, Robert W. Jennings, judge of the above-entitled court, in the name of the 
United States of America, do hereby command you, and each of you, that in 
canvassing the vote cast for Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska, 
at the election held on November 7, 1916, you reject and do not count the 
returns and the votes received and transmitted to you from the following pre- 
cincts, to wit : 

Votes. 

Choggiung: For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer — .. 3 

Deering: For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer ^ ^ 

Nizina r For James Wickersham '^ 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak: For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer S 

Utica : For James Wickei'sham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer ^ 

Bonnifield: For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

and that you issue a certificate of election of Charles A. Sulzer. the relator 
herein, certifying that he has been duly elected as a Delegate to Congress for 
tlie Territorv of Aliaska, at the election held on November 7. 1916, and that 
you, and each of vou, return this writ with your certificate and the certificates 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. % 87 

of each of you annexed, of having done as you are herein commanded, or the 
cause of your omission thereof, on the 3d day of March, 1917, at the hour of 
2 p. m. of said day, at the courthouse in the city of Juneau, Alaska, and at 
the court room thereof, and you are hereby restrained from counting tlie votes 
or receiving the returns from any one or more of the precincts above named 
under the further order of this court. 

Done in open court this 2d day of Marcli, 1917. 

(Signed) Robert W. Jennings, 

Judge. 

PETITION. 

In the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. The Terri- 
tory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, 
relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 
consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, de- 
fendants. 

To the Honorable Robert W. Jennings, .judge. 

The relator and petitioner herein petitions this honorable court for a writ 
of mandamus and a temporary rule, as hereinafter more specifically set forth, 
and in that behalf respectfully alleges and avers : 

I- 

That the relator and plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Delegate to 
Congress at the election held in the Territory of Alaska, on the 7th day of 
November, 1916, and as such candidate was voted for by the people of Ala.ska 
at said election, he having been regularly nominated and placed upon the 
official ballot pursuant to the provision of law entitling him to become a can- 
didate, and entitling him to a place upon the official ballot. 

II. 

That at said election, one James Wickersham was also a candidate for the 
said office of Delegate to Congress, and one Lena Morrow Lewis was also a 
candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress. There were no other candi- 
dates. 

III. 

That the above-uamed J. F. A. Strong is the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, duly appointed and acting as such; that the above-named Charles A. 
Davidson is the duly appointed and acting surveyor general of the Territory of 
Alaska, and the above-named John F. Pugh is the duly appointed and acting 
collector of customs for the Territory of Alaska. 

IV. 

That the above named comprise the canvassing board empowered and di- 
rected by law to canvass the votes cast by the voters of the Territory of Alaska 
at the election held on the 7th of November, 1916. for the office of Delegate to 
Congi'ess and other officers. 

V. 

That said board named as the respondent herein is. now in session and has 
been in session for some time past, engaged upon its duties of canvassing the 
returns of the various precincts within the Territory of Alaska. 

VI. 

That from the aforesaid returns from said election it appears that of the total 
votes cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress this relator 
and plaintiff received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 6.414 
votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes. 

VII. 

That thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue a 
certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to this relator 



88 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received the highest 
number of votes, as shown by said return. 

VIII. 

That the said canvassing board has refused and is still refusing to issue said 
certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, but. on the contrary, has 
threatened and announced their intention to disregard the legal election re- 
turns above referred to. in determining to whom said certificate shall issue and 
threaten and intend to count and canvass together with the returns aforesaid 
certain false, spurious, and illegal .votes, which returns and votes if counted 
together with the legal returns of votes will change the result of the said elec- 
tion as hereinafter set forth. 

IX. 

That the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns threatened to be 

counted consists of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from the following 

precincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit : 

Choggiung : Votes. 

For .Tames Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer . — 3 

♦Peering : • 

For .Tames Wickersham. 10 

T^or Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Utica : 

For .Tames Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham. 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

X. 

That in the precincts of Choggiung. Deering, Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, and 
Bonafield the said vote was and is illegal, false, spurious in this, that the votes 
cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing board Avere not cast 
in accordance with law in that the voters casting said ballots failed to use the 
form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska, and failed to use the 
official ballots prepared for said election according to the laws of Alaska, but, 
on the contrary, in casting said votes used a form of ballot .either prepared by 
the voters themselves or by some person other than the person or persons 
authorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots. 

XI. 

That the laws of Alaska provide as follows: 

" Tliat in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
<ifficial ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print 
thei]' liallots. but the .indges of election shall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must acf'om- 
pany and ))e made a part of the election returns." 

XII. 

That in each and every one of the preciucts above referred to where no 
official ballots were used no certificate explaining the facts which prevented the 
use of the official l)anot accompanies the returns. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. * 89 

XIII. 

That in none of the precincts abOA'e enumerated where the official ballot 
was not used as aforesaid were the election returns transmitted to the can- 
vassing hoard accompanied by a certificate of the .iud2:es of election, or of 
any other person or persons whatsoever, certifying to the facts, if any there 
were, which prevented the use of the official ballots if the use of such ballots 
was in any manner prevented, but, on the contrary, the ballots cast, if any 
were cast, in each of the precincts above enumerated were returned to the 
election board without any certificate setting forth any facts which in any 
wise prevented the use of the official ballot, 

XIV. 

That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, 
find illegal in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law and in 
that no certificate of the result of the election in said precinct, specifying the 
number of votes cast for each candidate, accompanied or was incUided 1n said 
returns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. 

XV. 

That if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct afore- 
said are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, together with 
the legal votes cast at said election, the total vote coiinted for James "Wicker- 
feham will be 6.490 and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer will be 6.4.59. 

' XVI, 

That the said canvassing board do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by an order of this honorable court, so count and include said false, 
spurious, and illegal votes in compiling the totals from said election returns 
for the Territory of Alaska, and do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by this honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said 
James Wickersham, based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstand- 
ing that your relator and plaintiff herein received the highest number of votes 
H'-ast at said election, and is entitled to said certificate of election, 

XVII. 

That plaintiff and relator has no plain, speedy or adeqiiate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law, and will be deprived of a certificate of election 
entitling him to tlie office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska 
unless this court issue this return of mandate, compelling the said canvassing 
l)oard to reject and not count the returns from each and all of the foregoing 
precincts hereinbefore enumerated and compelling the said canvassing board 
to issue to the relator and plaintiff herein its certificate certifying that he was 
duly and regularly elected to said office of Delegate to Congresss ; and, further, 
that the said canvassing board threatens to and will perform and do each and 
all of the acts above stated before a hearing can be heard upon this petition, 
and will so proceed unless a temporary rule is issued liy this honorable court 
empowering and restraining said canvassing board from so proceeding, pending 
this litigation, and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this 
court. 

Wherefore the relator and plaintiff herein prays that this honorable court 
issue its writ of mandamus, directed to said canvassing board and each of the 
members thereof, commanding said canvassing board and each of the members 
thereof to reject and not count the false, spurious, and illegal ballots hereinlie- 
fore referred to, and each and all of the same, and to reject the returns from 
said precincts where said ballots were cast, and to canvass and compile the 
votes cast in said election from the returns, legal and regular, as hereinbefore 
stated, and issue a certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, or that 
they show cause before this honorable court on a day to be fixed by the court 
why they have not done so. and that they then and there retiy-n this writ 
with their certificates annexed of having done as they are conmianded or the 
•cause of their omission thereof; 



90 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

And. furthei', that a temporary rule be made and issued out of this court 
restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters and things herein 
complained of. or any one or all of them, pending the final determination of 
this proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem 
just and equitable ; 

And plaintiff further prays for his costs and disbursements in his behalf 
incurred. 

John R. Winn, 
Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff. 
Terkieory of Alaska, 

Diviswn- No. 1, ss: 
I, Charles A. Sulzer, being first duly sworn according to law, on oath de- 
poses and says that he is the relator and iilaintift herein ; that he has read 
the foregoing complaint and petition for writ of mandamus and for a tem- 
porary rule ; that he knows the contents thereof and that the facts therein 
stated are true, as he verily believes 

Chas. a. Sulzer. 

Subscribed and s\\'()rn to before me this 2d day of March. 1917. 
[seal.] (Signed) Simon Hellenthal, 

Notary Fuhlic for Alaska. 
Mj conunission expires November 30. 1917. 

I. Simon Hellenthal. do hereby certify that the above is a full, true, and coi'- 
rect copy of the original petition and order. 

Simon Hellenthal. 

answer or .TOHN F. PUGH. 

In the district court of the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, r. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong, Charles F. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 

Comes now the aforesaid John F. Pugh, in his own proper person, appearing 
for himself alone, and answers the alternative writ of mandamus and the in- 
junction order issued in above-entitled cause and the petition filed therein, and 
alleges as follows : 

I. 

He admits all the allegations of the said petition and writ. 

II. 

He further alleges that he believes the votes of the precincts mentioned in 
said petition should not be counted by the canvassing board for the reasons set 
forth in said petition, and that a certificate of election should be issued to said 
Charles A. Sulzer for said reasons, and he expresses his willingness, as a mem- 
ber of said canvassing board, to reject said ballots and issue said certificate; 
but, being only one of said canvassing board of three, he is powerless in the 
premises. 

Wherefore, having fully answered, he prays to be hence dismissed with his 
costs. 

(Signed) .John F. Pugh, 

Collector of Customs, Member of Canvassing Board. 

Territory of Alaska, 

City of Juneau, ss: 
I, John F. Pugh, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say I am one of 
the defendants named in the above-entitled cause. I have read the foregoing 
answer, know the contents thereof, and the same is true. 

(Signed) J. F. Pugh, 

Collector of Customs. Member of Canrassing Board. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of March, A. D. 1917. 
[seal.] • R- H. Stevens, 

Notary Public. 
(Com. exp. 12/30/19.) 



WIGKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 91 

ANSWER TO ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

In the district court of tlie Territory of Ahislvsi, division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong, Charles F. (E.) Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 

Come now J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, niemhers of the can- 
vassing board for the Territory of Alaska, and defendants in the above-entitled 
action, and for their answer to the alternative writ of mandamus issued and 
served upon the)n herein state as follows : 



That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election held 
in the Territory of Alaska on the Tth day of November, 1916, and that the 
official tally sheats made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, 
and tliat the same showed the following result of the vote for the several can- 
didates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ; 
Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James AVickersham, 6,490 votes. 

II. 

That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and 
the totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board said board voted to 
issue certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who had 
received the greatest number of votes in the said general election aforesaid, 
as shown by the official tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance of 
such action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alternative 
writ of mandamus upon the members thereof, a certificate of election was pre- 
pared by said board for issuance to James Wickersham as Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska for the term beginning March 5, 1917 ; but that before said cer- 
tificate had been signed and issued by the board the members thereof were 
served with the writ of mandamus herein, and no further action has been taken 
looking to the issuance of said certificate of election pending the further order 
of tiie court herein. 

III. 

That in the canvass of the returns from the voting precincts named in the 
alternative writ of mandamus herein and in the petition filed in this cause the 
following irregularities were found in the returns from the respective precihcts : 

Choggiiing. — The returns from this voting precinct showed that nonofflcial 
ballots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the returns showing why 
such ballots had been used. 

Beering. — The returns from this voting pi-ecinct showed that nonofficial 
ballots had been used, but no certificate aceompauied the returns showing why 
such ballots had been used. In this connection, for the information of the 
court, and as a part of this answer, there is attached hereto, marked " Exhibit 
A," the original telegram received by the canvassing board from the clerk of 
the United States District Court for the Second Judicial Division, in which 
the said clerk states that he has received an affidavit of one of the judges of 
Ihe Deering voting precinct, and a certificate from another of said judges, 
showing wliy official liallots were not used in said voting precinct ; and that 
said clerk has mailed a copy of said affidavit and certificate to the canvassing 
board ; but the same have not yet been received by the board. 

Utica. — In the case of the Utica voting precinct, the returns showed that non- 
official ballots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the returns show- 
ing why such ballots were used. In this connection, reference is here made 
to the telegram from the clerk of the District Court for the Second Judicial 
Division, hereto attached as a part of this answer and marked " Exhibit A," 
in which the said clerk states that the judges of election for Utica precinct had 
on January 18, 1917, isued a certificate showing why official ballots were not 
used in said precinct, that said clerk had received said certificate, and that he 
had mailed a copy to the canvassing board ; but the same has not yet been 
'received by the board. 



92 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Nizina. — In the case of the Nizina voting precinct, tlie only irregularity 
fiihown on the face of the returns, so far as the canvassing board could deter- 
mine, was that one of the three election judges had sworn the other two, but 
there was nothing to show that he had himself been sworn, although he had 
signed the oath form with the other two judges. 

Nnshagak. — In the case of the Nushagak voting precinct, the ballots used 
were Democratic " Party workers's " ballots, but no certificate accompanied 
the returns showing why such ballots were used. 

Bonnifleld. — In the case of the Bonnifield voting precinct, ballots marked 
" Sample Ballots " were used, but no certificate accompanies the returns show- 
ing why such ballots were used. 

Vault. — In the case of the Vault voting precinct, the election judges did not 
sign the certificate of result form in the back of the election register and tally 
book, but the canvassing board received from the clerk of the United State's 
District Court for the Fourth Judicial Division, in which said precinct is 
located, the " Certificate of the clerk to election returns," bearing the names 
of the election judges for said voting precinct, and duly certified by the 
clerk of the court as a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in 
his office. 

IV. 

That as to the reasons why the canvassing board counted the returns from 
the voting precincts named in the petition and in the writ of mandamus issued 
herein these defendants state as follows : 

That, acting in the capacity of a canvassing board, they believed, and still 
believe, that they were acting in the capacity of a ministerial body only and not 
as a judicial body, and therefore that it was not the duty of the said board to 
construe the provisions of the election laws, either Federal or Territorial, or 
to decide legal questions involved with respect to certain technical irregulari- 
ties in the returns from any of the voting precincts, including the returns from 
the voting precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, Bonni- 
field, and Vault, except to determine, in so far as they could, the real intention 
of the voters ; there being no fraud shown on the face of the returns and no 
allegations of fraud threin having been made to the canvassing board ; and 
the board further believed, and still believes, that the provision of law which 
directs election boards to show why official ballots were not used, is directory 
only. 



These defendants further respectfully state that they have made no further 
answer to the allegations contained in the petition filed herein, for the reason 
that the canvassing board has no funds with which to employ legal counsel, 
and the members thereof do not conceive it to be their duty to employ such 
counsel and pay for his services from their private means. 

Wherefore having answered the writ herein, these defendants respectfully 
ask that they be discharged therefrom and that the proceedings herein be dis- 
missed. 

(Signed) .7. F. A. Strong, 

Chaeles E. Davidson, 

Canvassing Board. 



EXHIBIT A. 
27 [Signal Corps, United States Army. — Telegram.] 

Received at 35 sikg 43 OB, Nome, Alaska. Feb. 12, 1917. 
Steong, Governor, Chairman Canvassing Board, Juneau. 

Certificate Utica judges issued January eighteenth showing why official 
ballots not used received to-day : affidavit of one certificate of second judge 
of election, Deering precinct, dated Febuary second of same tenor ; also re- 
ceived copies mailed. 

Adams, Clerk, 3.45 p. m. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 93 

supplemental bkief hv amicus cukuii. 

United States of Amekica, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, beinsi- first duly sworn, on oath depose and saj' : That I 
am one of the defendants named in tlie above-entitled action and a member of 
the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, being the chairman of said 
board ; that I have read the foregoing answer, know the contents thereof, and 
that the same is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

(Signed) .J. F. A. Stkong. 

Subscribed and sworn to before nie this 6th day of March, 1917. 
[SEAL.] (Signed) Chas. E. Naghel, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
INIy commission expires November ], 1920. 



In the district court for the district of Alaska, division No. 1, at .luneau. The 
Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board, etc.. defendants. 
No. 1593-A. 

Mandamus will not lie against the executive. (Stone r. Fazier, 86 S. W.. 319; 
People V. Governor, 18 Am. Rep., 89; Hindekop v. Hadley, 177 Fed.. 1 (11) : 
State ex rel. r. Huston, 113. p. 190 ; State ex rel. v. Stone, 25 S. W.. 376 ; People 
V. Dunne, 101 N. E., 560.) 

Respectfully submitted. 

John Rustgakd, Amicus Curice. 



in the district court for the district of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. The 
Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
defendants. No. 1593-A. 

Comes now John Rustgard. in response to the court's invitation to appear 
as amicus curife, and respectfully submits the following considerations as bear- 
ing upon the question before the court, with the distinct understanding, how- 
ever, that he does not have any authority, desire, or intention to appear for or 
on behalf of James Wickersham. 

I. 

the facts. 

The petition and also the writ as amended by stipulation filed March 7 
subsequent to the arguments allege inter alias tliat at the recent Territorial 
election relator received 6,438 votes and that James Wickersham received only 
6,414 votes. This allegation is admitted by John F. Pugh as true. It is also 
alleged in the petition and writ above referred to that the votes in several 
precincts mentioned were false, spurious, and illegal, and in addition thereto 
that the returns from those precincts were also false, spurious, and illegal. 
These allegations are also admitted as true by defendant Pugh. The other two 
defendants, while they do not specifically admit the aforementioned allega- 
tions, do not specifically deny them, but they set up what they consider the 
facts so far as they relate to their own work as canvassing board. In the 
arguments before the court by counsel for petitioner it was not contended, 
however, that James Wickersham received only 6,414 votes ; nor was it con- 
tended that the votes at any of the precincts were false or spurious ; nor was 
it i-ontended that any of the returns before the canvassing board were false 
or spurious ; but it was distinctly stated by counsel that the only facts upon 
which they based their allegations of falsity and spuriousness were certain 
defects in the returns from the precincts in question, consisting of a failure of 
the judges of election to certify the reasons why nonofficial ballots had been 
used ; and it was submitted that inasmuch as no certificate as to the reason 



94 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

why nonofRcial ballots were used accompanied the returns from those precincts 
the canvassing board had no authority to count the returns. It was also 
admitted that if the returns from those precincts were counted James 
Wickersham would have a plurality over relator. 

It will, therefore, be observed that there is a violent conilict between the 
facts as set out in the pleadings and the facts as admitted by counsel in the 
argument. Under the circumstances, inasmuch as the majority of the board 
do not appear by counsel and have no means to employ counsel, and inasmuch 
as their answer is insufficient to set out before the court the true facts as 
orally admitted by relator's counsel, and inasmuch as defendant Pugh has 
evidently admitted more in his answer that he conscientiously intended to 
admit, 1 submit that the court should take the necessary steps to have the 
pleadings conform to the admitted facts, even if it be necessary for that 
purpose to appoint some attorney to act as amicus curise to prepare the neces- 
sary motions to that end. 

It will also be observed that many of the most violent allegations in the 
petition and writ are immaterial, and tend only to confuse the issues. The 
allegation as to the number of votes actually received by each is immaterial, 
because that is not a question for the court to determine in this proceeding. 
The allegation that the votes in certain precints were false, spurious, and 
illegal is also immaterial, because that is beyond the jurisdiction of this court 
to determine. It is also beyond the jurisdiction of the canvassing board to 
determine whether the votes cast at any particular precinct were legal or not. 
The allegation that the returns from those precincts were false, spurious, and 
illegal may also be considered as immaterial because in determining whether 
or not any particular return is genuine or false the canvassing board is a 
judicial body and can not be moved by writ of mandamus ; and it must be 
concluded from the petition and writ that the canvassing board have decided 
in favor of the genuineness of the returns. Nevertheless, the pleadings leave 
the issues so uncertain and confused that justice demands a radical correction 
of them. 

The writer has made investigations recently on the subject above referred 
to and finds that no evidence was submitted to the canvassing board as to 
whether any illegal votes were cast at any of the precincts in question, nor 
was any claim made before the canvassing board, nor did any evidence of 
any nature appear before the canvassing board asserting or indicating that 
any of the returns were false or suprious, but that the only question that was 
ever presented to the board was whether or not the returns from the various 
precincts were sufficiently in compliance with the law to entitle them to bo 
counted. 

These being the true facts, I submit that the proper step to be taken by the 
court is to have them appear in the pleadings. This is especially important 
as the parties most interested — the voters in the precincts attempted to be 
thrown out and James ~\^'ickersham, who received the majority of those votes — 
are not parties to this preceding and have no opportunity to be heard. More- 
over, the case is one which affects the entire public of Alaska, and, inasmuch 
as no provision seems to be made by law to furnish counsel to protect that 
public right, it is proper for this court to take the necessary steps to that end. 
Assuming that this will be done, I beg leave to submit a brief consideration of 
some of the most important points argued by counsel for relator. 

II. 

surnciENCY of the returns. 

Section 21 of chapter 25 of the law of 1915 provides that where the official 
ballot is not used " the judges of election shall in this event certify the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballot, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns." 

It is contended by counsel that the omission of such a certificate invalidates 
the entire retui-n, so that it becomes the duty of the canvassing board to throw 
it out and disregard it. 

Under our statute an election return is composed of the following elements : 

1. Certificate of the result of election, specifying the number of votes, in 
words and figures, cast for each candidate. 

2. The register of voters. 

3. All ballots cast. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 95 

4. All affidavits made. 

5. Where nonofflcial ballots were used, a certificate stating the fact which 
prevented the use of the oflicial ballot. 

The law further provides that these five classes of documents must all be 
immediately placed in one envelope and immediately, carefully, and securely 
sealed. 

AVhile all these duties are enjoined by law and may be enforced by mandamus 
or .other appropriate remedy, it does not follow that an absence of any or most 
of them vitiates the returns to the extent of rendering it void — in absence of 
fraud. 

There is only one of those documents absolutely indispensable to a valid 
return, and that is the certificate of the result of the election. 

It is admitted by counsel for the Territory that if the register of voters 
should be missing, or some or all of the ballots should have been omitted, or 
all of the affidavits should have gone astray, the validity of the returns would 
not thereby have been affected. But, it is asserted, if the judges should fail to 
include a statement of the reasons why the official ballot was not used the 
return is void. What difference in principle is there in leaving out any of the 
items above enumerated except No. 1? Why is No. 5 more essential than Nos. 
2, 3. or 4? It is argued that if the official ballots had been received it was 
unlawful to use nonofficial ballots, and that therefore the election was void. 
This may well be admitted for the purpose of the argument, but the absence 
of the certificate as to the renson for using nonofficial ballots does not prove 
that they were used unlawfully. 

It is a universal principle of law that every official is presumed to have done 
his duty until the contrary is affirmatively established. The law assiduously 
surrounds every official act with the presmnptiou of legality and reguarity. 
This applies to elections and election officials as well. 

" It will be presumed that public officers, including persons acting in an 
official capacity, have been duly elected and that they have qualified, that their 
official acts are properly performed, and in general that everything in connec- 
tion with the official act was legally done, whether prior to the act, as giving 
notice, serving process, or determining the existence of conditions prescribed as 
a prerequisite to legal action." (16 Cyc, 1076.) ' 

The legal presumption, therefore, exists that the election board had deter- 
mined that the facts which authorized the use of a nonofficial ballot existed. 
In other words, the law presumes that at the election everything was done that 
the law required to be done. 

The absence from the returns of the register of voters does not prove that 
there were no voters. The absence of the ballots from the returns does not 
raise the presumption that there were no ballots. This is conceded. By what 
logic then can it be concluded that the absence of the certificate of the reasons 
for using nonofficial ballots proves there Avas no reason? 

The following rule may be deduced from the hundreds of adjudications on 
the subject : If the return contains a certificate, however unskillfully prepared, 
which shows the number of votes cast for each candidate and there is nothing 
in the returns to show affirmatively that the election was void, the return is 
valid and must be counted. Our statute seems to be explicit on the subject, 
for it provides : 

" Said board upon the completion of said canvass shall declare the person 
who has received the greatest number of votes for Delegate to be duly elected 
Delegate from Alaska for the term for which he has been so elected and shall 
issue and deliver to him, in writing, under their hands and seals, a certificate 
of his election." 

There is absolutely nothing in the statute to indicate that it is the duty of 
the board to assume that the election was in violation of law. and void, until 
that fact affirmatively appears. Such assumption of illegality is in clear viola- 
tion of law, as well as in contravention of the uniform rule laid down by the 
decisions on the subject. 

There is nothing unlawful in using nonofficial ballots. The Legislature of 
Alaska anticipated that it would be quite likely, under prevailing conditions, 
that at many precincts official ballots could not be received. 

It is an interesting commentary upon the contentions of relator to point to 
the fact shown by the return to the writ made by the majority of the board, 
that relator's own sample ballots were used at some of the precincts. Their 
illegality consists in marking them for the opposing candidate. 



96 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

If the returns were insufficient to comply witli all the requirements of the 
law, it would probably be the duty of the canvassing board — if not it would be 
the duty of the Attorney General — to call upon the various election boards for 
further and amended returns, and even to invoke the aid of the courts to com- 
pel such amendments. (15 Cyc, 378; State v. Hill, 29 N. W., 258; Commis- 
sioners V. Emminger, 74 Penn. St., 479; Enos v. State, 31 N. E., 357; Webre v. 
Wilton, 29 La. Ann., 610 ; Rich v. Board, 59 N. W., 181 ; State v. Cholean Co., 31 
P., 879; McKinnie v. Pierce, 22 S. E., 506.) 

It would seem, therefore, that counsel for the Territory as well as relator 
have mistaken their remedy. The writ of mandamus should have been directed 
against the election boards to compel amendment of the returns by attaching 
the missing certificate, and then, if the returns should affirmatively show the 
election to be void, would be the proper time to persuade the canvassing board 
to disregard the votes from such precincts. 

The authorities presented by counsel for the Territory are cases instituted 
to compel the canvassing board to count certain returns. This action is insti- 
tuted to compel the board to disregard certain returns which to their minds are 
sufficient to disclose the number of votes cast for each candidate. This action 
is also instituted after the board had acted and canvassed the returns and 
announced the result. This proceeding is in effect an attempt to review the 
action of the board. For such a proceeding I do not believe there is any 
precedent in the books. 

III. 

PEOPEIETY OF THE KEMEUY. 

A writ of mandamus is not a writ of right. (State v. Ely, 137 N. W., 834; 
26 Cyc, 143.) 

It will be issued only to prevent serious injury and where no other adequate 
remedy is available and where the legal right is clear." Nor will the court issue 
a w^rit to protect a technical right. 

" The writ is employed only in unusual cases, where other remedies fail, and 
it is hedged about by many conditions totally inapplicable to the ordinary suit 
at law. The applicant must in all cases substantially demonstrate the pro- 
priety and justice of his case. Nor is the court bound to take the case as the 
applicant presents it. . It may consider defendant's rights, the interest of third 
persons, the importance or unimportance of the case, and the applicant's con- 
duct in determining whether or not the writ shall go. * * * Mandamus may 
be refused where the public interests would be injuriously aftected, and it will 
not issue to compel the performance of an act which Avill work a public or a 
private mischief. * * * The writ of mandamus issues only in cases of 
necessity to prevent injustice or great injury. If there is a doubt of its neces- 
sity or propriety, it will not go." (26 Cyc, 144 et seq.) 

There is nothing in the petition or writ to shovr that there are not a great 
many other precincts than those enumerated in the pleadings in the returns 
froni which the same or other equal defects may not appear. In a proceeding 
of this character the court will not act, and should not act, without having all 
the facts before it, in order that no injustice may be done either to third 
persons or the public generally. 

Says the Court of Appeals of Californhi : 

"As before stated, the petition before us does not disclose what is in the full 
returns, but the observations just made illustrate the danger of any court 
attempting to direct the canvassing board as to what particular part of the 
returns shall be considered as conclusive as to the votes received by the several 
candidates without a full statement in the petition for the writ of all matters 
contained in the returns before the canvassing board. Cases may occur where 
upon a full return being made before the court it may justly direct the canvass- 
ing board upon such a point. No such case is present in the one before us. 
The only facts l^efore us as to precincts 64 and 103 are such as are stated in 
the petition and admitted by the denmrrer. These facts make it no violation 
of a clear legal right." (People ex rel. v. Mui'phy, 129 Pac, 603.) 

If it were clear from the records that the election in the precincts involved 
were illegal, the court might be induced to look with favor upon any attempt 
to eliminate the returns from the canvass, but where the writ in all probability 
will have the effect of disenfranchising voters who have a right to their ballots 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 97 

being counted it will not issue, even where a technical right to such issue is 
shown. To authorize the court to issue this writ, it must be very clear that the 
returns in question should not be counted. It must also be very clear that the 
issuance of the writ does not result in disenfranchising legal voters. It niust 
be equally clear that the writ does not give relator a technical advantage which 
in truth and in fact he is not justly entitled to. The court will not aid a 
litigant to take unfair advantage of the shortcomings of public officials to the 
Injury of innocent third persons or the public generally. 

In the case at bar it is asked that the court direct the board to throw out 
certain election returns and issue the certificate of election to relator. The last 
part of the prayer may not be granted, yet it is conceded the effect would be 
the same. For aught that appears the elections of all the members of the legis- 
lature and of the attorney general may have depended upon the very returns 
which plaintiff seeks to have rejected. It is no secret that all the certificates 
have issued except to delegate elect. Should the court issue the writ asked for 
the absurd and unjust situation may arise that some 8 or 10 candidates get 
the benefit of the returns in question while one is deprived thereof. This 
may not be the fault of the court, but neither the Territory of Alaska nor rela- 
tor Is in position to ask a favor unless they have both shown a purpose and 
intend to vindicate the law because it is right, and not merely because they can 
gain an advantage which they probably would not have gained had the officials 
done their full duty. For the court to permit or tolerate such course would be 
to invite political chicanery in public office — to invite political confreres to 
secure certificates issued to some of their numbers to whom the alleged 
erroneous returns are favorable and then have the returns eliminated as to 
those to whom they are found unfavorable. 

One who comes into court to ask any extraordinary writ must come with 
clean hands. 

The case is one which peculiarly appeals to the discretion of the court and 
calls for caution lest the process of the court be abused. 

IV. 

ANOTHER EEMEDY AVAILABLE. 

Mandamus in cases of this character is not favored except in very clear cases 
and where fraud is involved, for the reason that petitioner has a remedy by qvTO 
warranto. McKee v. Board, 128, p. 294; State ex rel. v. Board, 116, p. 168; 
People V. Hanes, 90 N. Y. S., 61.) 

In the case at bar the House of Representatives is the proper tribunal to 
determine not only the sufficiency of the returns, but of every proceeding touch- 
ing the legality of the election. Not only is the House the proper tribunal, but 
the only tribunal with authority on the subject. 

For this reason a writ vdll not issue against a canvassing board where a con- 
gressional election is involved. (Belknap i\ Board. .54 N. W., 376.) 

The same ruling has been made where the election involves a member of the 
legislature. And the reason is the same. (Nauman v. Board, 41 N. W., 267 ; 
Wheeler v. Board, 53 N. W., 914.) 

Following the same principle, it has also been held that where the State 
constitution provides that the legislature be the judge of election of the mem- 
bers of the supreme court, writ of mandamus will not issue to the canvassing 
board on petition of a candidate for the supreme bench who feels himself 
aggrieved by the action of the board. (Newton v. Board, 53 N. W., 1043.) 

The foregoing doctrine finds ample support in the case of In re Hardingv 
219 U. S., 363, Avhere the court in a lengthy decision holds mandamus will 
not lie to compel a court to perform a purely ministerial duty, because the 
petitioner has a remedy by appeal. 

It will not be denied that there are cases to the contrary, but these either 
go counter to the general principles controlling the issue of writs of mandamus 
or the petition is based upon fraud of such a character that to refuse the writ 
would be to allow a candidate to take advantage of and profit by his own 
fraud. The writ will then issue as a matter of public policy. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE TEERITOEIAL BOARD ARE POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL. 

The cases heretofore discussed have related to county or town boards. These 
occupy a different status from a State board. The latter's duty is purely gov- 

13289—17 7 



98 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

ernmental and is beyond tlie power of the courts to control. It is a body co- 
ordinate with the courts in the discharge of its gOA^ernmental functions. 

In this respect the Territorial canvassing board occupies the same position 
as a State canvassing board. It is a branch of the government coordinate 
with and not subservient to the court. Its political actions can not be con- 
trolled by the court. (Orman et al. v. People, 71 p. 430.) 

Says the court in the case last above cited : 

" The individuals constituting the board consist of the highest officials in 
the executive branch of the Government. The duty is imposed upon them, not 
as individuals but as executive officials. In this instance it was imposed upon 
James B. Orman, not individually but upon him as the governor of the State; 
and so of each of the other officials." 

The court held that a board so constituted was beyond the jurisdiction of 
the courts in the discharge of their governmental functions. The opinion in 
that case is the best-considered and most carefully prepared of those which 
I have found on this subject, and I recommend it in' its entirety for the perusal 
of the court. 

The briefness of the time which, under the peculiar conditions of the case, 
have been alloted me for the examination of the various subjects disciissed, 
has rendered it impossible to make an exhaustive presentation of any feature 
of the case, but trusting the foregoing may be of some aid to the court, it is 

Respectfully submitted. 

John Rustguard, 

Amicus Curiw. 



United States of Ameeica, 

District of Alaska, Division A^o. 1, ss: 

I the undersigned clerk of the District Court for the District of Alaska, 
Division No. 1, do hereby certify that the hereto attached is a full, true, and 
correct copy of the original memorandum opinion on demurrer to defendant's 
answer in cause No. 1594-A. The Territory of Alaska, ex rel. Sulzer r. The 
Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, on record in my office. 

In testimony whereof I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Juneau, Alaska, this 20th day of March, 1917. 

[seal.] J. W. Bell, Clerk. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau. The 
Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
defendants. No. 1593-A. 

Jennings, Judge. 

STATEMENT. 

This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the canvassing board, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong (governor), Charles B. Davidson (surveyor general), and 
John F. Pugh (collector of customs), of the District of Alaska, to reject — i. e., 
not count — the votes or alleged votes from certain precincts for the office of 
Delegate in Congress from Alaska and to issue to Charles A. Sulzer a certificate 
of election to said office. 

The petition for the alternative writ alleges that the returns from the pre- 
cincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Nushagak, Utica, and Bonnifield were not 
entitled to be canvassed or counted because said returns plainly show that no 
official ballots were used and do not show any reason for the nonuse of official 
ballots ; that the returns from the precinct of Vault were not entitled to be can- 
vassed or counted because not properly authenticated. The petition further 
avers that if the above-mentioned precincts are not counted Charles A. Sulzer 
will plainly appear to be entitled to the certificate of election to said office in- 
stead of James Wickersham to whom the board was about to issue the cer- 
tificate. 

On the filing and presentation of said petition the alternative writ was duly 
issued and duly served. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. ^ 99 

All the members of .the canvassing board duly answered said writ, but all did 
not joint in one answer. Collector Pugh filed his answer admitting all the 
allegations of the petition and writ and expressing his entire willingness to do 
the things commanded in the writ but stating that as he was a minority member 
of said board he was " powerless in the premises." Gov. Strong and Surveyor 
General Davidson joined in one answer the allegations of which are sufficiently 
stated at a later point in this decision. 

All the defendants appeared without counsel. Mr. Davidson besides filing his 
joint answer aforesaid appeared in person. 

The plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, but the court refused to 
consider the matter on such motion, deeming it better to take it up on demurrer 
to the answer, whereupon plaintiff demurred ore tenus to the answers. The 
court advised the canvassing board to secure counsel, whereupon Mr. Davidson 
made the following statement : 

" Your honor, we have no interest in it any more than we would like the law 
point decided, and we have made our answer the best we could, and we have 
no other interest any more than to obey the orders of this court, whatever 
they may be." 

The court thereupon inquired if Judge Wickersham was represented at this 
hearing, and being answered in the negative stated that it would hear the 
oral argument of the plaintiff in favor of the demurrer, and would be glad to 
consider any argument that any friend of Judge Wickersham might wish to 
make or any brief he might choose to file at that time or at a laterdate. 

It is to be regretted that Judge Wickersham has not intervened herein. He 
is a proper party, but probably not a necessary party. At present, as the 
court is informed, he is absent from the Territory and the date of his return 
hereto is problematical. Owing to the near approach of the extra session of 
Congress a situation is presented necessitating action by the court without too 
long delay. I believe, however, that his interests have been well looked after 
by Mr. Rustgard, who has filed a brief herein in which, although the author 
expressly disclaims any authority from Judge Wickersham, the points against 
the demurrer are presented with great force and clearness, and I can not 
see how Judge Wickersham's interests could be any better presented were he a 
formal party and here protesting against the sustaining of the demurrer. 

The people, too, can be said to be interested in the matter. This is true, 
however, in a limited sense only. It is not true in the sense that the mandamus, 
if sustained, would, could, or might result in the seating or unseating of one 
who was not or who was the people's choice. That question is not involved 
here, as this is not a proceeding to settle a contested election. Their interests, 
w^hatever their nature, w^ould naturally be looked after by the attorney general. 
The Territory is a formal party plaintiff, although that is not necessary under 
our code. The attorney general was present in court at the argument on the 
demurrer. The court would willingly have considered anything he might have 
said on the subject. It is a fair presumption that if he had thought that the 
demurrer was not well taken and that the interests of the people were about to 
be jeopardized he would not have remained silent. 

The court will say, however, that in deciding the demurrer it has con- 
sidered all possible aspects of the case, the same as if all persons however 
interested were formal parties. 

MANDAMUS. 

The points raised by Mr. Rustgard relate mostly to the propriety of the 
remedy, and will be adverted to first, because they are of a nature that makes 
their primal consideration the most logical way in which to approach the 
questions involved. 

The first point raised by him is to call attention to the inartificialness of the 
pleadings. The point is well taken ; but, nevertheless, there is enough in the 
pleadings and stipulations to make a case in court and to call for action by 
the court ; and in view of the matters and things set up in the answers of the 
canvassing board and the attitude of the canvassing board, as disclosed by said 
answers and by the statement of Mr. Davidson, the court can not do otherwise 
than decide the question involved ; and this it will do without too strict an 
adherence to established forms of procedure, especially in view of the fact that 
the President has called an extra session of Congress for an early date, and it is 
important that the person entitled to the certificate of election should present 
himself on that date, and that the contest of election, if any such there shall 
be, before the House of Representatives may be initiated and concluded at the 



100 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

earliest possible moment, to the end that Alaska may be represented by her 
duly chosen representative, whoever that may be. 

A second point raised by Mr. Rnstgard is that mandamus will not lie to 
compel the governor to do any act, either ministerial or discretionary. Nearly 
all the authorities as to this point have reference to mandamus by a State court 
against a State governor, and they proceed mostly on a consideration of the 
threefold division of the functions of government. It may well be doubted 
whether they would govern the actions of a court as to the appointed executive 
of a Territory where no such constitutional division prevails, either in theory 
or in practice. Even as it is, the authorities are very conflicting. The court, 
however, does not feel that there is any need of passing on the question here, 
for the following reasons : 

(a) All the members of the board have voluntarily submitted themselves to 
the jurisdiction of the court by the filing of answers, in none of which is such 
question raised, and they seem more desirous of having the case decided upon 
the merits or demerits of their action as a canvassing board than of stand- 
ing on technicalities — that abundantly appears from the statement of Mr. 
Davidson — and where that is the case the question as to whether the governor 
can be mandamused is not to be considered. (State v. Board of Inspectors, 
6 Lea (Tenn.), p. 21.) (b) Even if mandamus could not run against the 
governor, as being the chief executive of the Territory, it could run against 
Davidson and Pugh, and we have no statute requiring that the action of the 
board shall be unanimous. As said in the case of Huidekoper v. Hadley (177 
Fed., 12) : 

" The reason why the governor can not be coerced by mandamus is that he 
needs no such coercion ; he is conclusively presumed to be willing to perform 
all his executive duties. His constitutional obligation is to see that the laws 
of the State shall be faithfully executed, and his oath of office requires him 
to support the Constitution and demean himsalf faithfully in office. The very 
reasons which exempt him from liability to the writ of mandamus are the 
ones which insure the performance of his duty as a member of the board." 

Not only is this theoretically true, but the answer in this case shows that it 
is actually so. It is not meant to drawn any invidious distinction between the 
disposition of the governor and that of the other members of the board, for in 
this regard their answer is practically the same. I take it for granted that 
all are willing and anxious to do their duty, if only their duty is made plain. 

The opinion in the case cited concludes with the following: 

"Accordingly, we think the writ of mandamus may lawfully be awarded to 
secure action by a statutory quorum of the board in this case when circum- 
stances are such that the entire membership can not be reached by that writ." 
(177 Fed., 13.) 

It is true that decision uses the words " statutory quorum," but the law is 
well settled that in performing public duties a majority of a board is a lawful 
quorum and may act for the board unless the State requires unanimity. (37 
Cyc, 1087, note 43, and cases cited.) 

A third point raised by Mr. Rustgard is that mandamus will not lie, because 
there is a remedy by contest befoj-e the House of Representatives. This con- 
tention fails to appreciate the true object and purpose of the action. 

The object of this proceeding is to. obtain the certificate of election — that is, 
prima facie evidence. It is not to put one man out and put the plaintiif in.. A 
mandafus will not lie for such purpose as that, for that is for the House of 
Representatives to determine ; but no other process or proceeding can give the 
specific relief which plaintiff claims to be entitled to here. 

" The remedy which will suspend mandamus must be one which is competent 
to afford relief upon the very subject matter in question, and which is equally 
convenient, beneficial, and effectual." (26 Cyc, 171-172.) 

In the case of O'Farrell v. Colby (2 Minn.. 148), the court said: 

"Another position urged by the defense is that, as by the Constitution, the 
Senate is made the judge of the election and eligibility of its Members, no 
other tribunal can or ought to take jurisdiction of this case. This position, we 
think, is sufficiently answered by the fact that this is not a proceeding to try 
the right of any party to the office of Senator, but simply to determine whether 
the plaintiffs are entitled, at the hands of the defendant, to certificates of elec- 
tion to that office. Nor can our decision in the least affect the question of the 
election of either of the candidates. That question can be definitely settled by 
the Senate alone. The aid of this court is sought to prevent the consequences 
of a usurpation of authority on the part of the board of canvassers, and to com- 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. '^ 101 

pel the defendant to do his duty. All that we can do is to arm the parties en- 
titled with the credentials necessary to enable them properly to assert their 
rights before the proper tribunal. Whether they, or either of them were legally 
elected, is not a question here. One candidate may be entitled to a certificate 
of election, while liis opponent may liavf a clear right to the office." 

In the case of People v. Hilliard (29 111., 413), the court say (opinion by 
Breese, C. J.) : 

" Though the House of Representatives is the sole and exclusive judge of the 
qualifications of its members, this application has no reference whatever to the 
point of qualifications. Its sole purpose is to procure the requisite evidence, 
to present to that body, of a prima facie right to a seat in it, independent 
wholly of the question of qualification. It is clear, then, the appropriate 
remedy is not with the House of Representatives. The only remedy the 
relator has — the only means by which he can obtain evidence of the right 
claimed — is by this compulsory writ of mandamus." 

See also State v. Board of Commissioners (31 P. R., 879, Mont.), to same 
effect. 

A fourth point mentioned by Mr. Rustgard is that if the returns of the 
election board to the canvassing board are insufficient, mandamus should be 
brought against the election officers for fuller returns. But even if so, no 
mandamus was brought by the canvassing board or any one else against the 
election board. This court can not, of its own accord, bring a mandamus ; the 
canvassing board took the returns as they were, and the question which con- 
fronts this court here is. What did those returns show? Not what they might 
have shown if amended. 

It is shown at another place in this decision that the power of considering 
new or amended returns is a matter of statute. 

Another point advanced is that as the writ of mandamus is a discretionary 
writ the court ought not to issuse it in this case. 

It is true that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is largely discretionary 
■with the court, but it would be an abuse of discretion to deny the writ in a 
P'-()'>er cr se. (Atchison v. Commissioners, 12 Kans., p. 127; New v. Vaegen, 
71 N. W., 880.) 

Anotlier point is that the board, counting the precincts questioned herein, 
has issued certificates of election for candidates for the House of Representa- 
tives of Alaska, and that for it to refuse to count said precincts in the matter 
of the election of a Delegate to Congress would be inconsistent, and that for 
the court to compel them to do so " would be to invite political confreres to 
secure certificates issued to some of their numbers to whom the alleged errone- 
ous returns are favorable and then have the returns eliminated as to those to 
whom they are found favorable." The answer readily suggests itself, and it 
is this : The court can not consider what the board has or has not done in the 
case of other candidates, nor what the " political confreres " or " political op- 
ponents " of any of the interested parties may or may not have done, or do or 
do not intend to do ; for such things are not pleaded and are not before the 
court, nor is it apparent how such things could be material if pleaded. 

If the board has taken any such action as that, the possibility of which is 
suggested by Mr. Rustgard, it is likely that the person against whom the action 
was taken, would, if he had thoughf proper, have come before the court asking 
the relief which the plaintiff here is asking, or have contested the matter before 
the House of Representatives of Alaska which convened on March 5. If he has 
done neither, it but argues that he did not care so to do. But whether he did 
or did not do either or both of these things the person entitled to the certificate 
for Delegate should not be pre,1udiced in his application on account of the 
action or nonaction of others in cases concerning themselves. He stands on his 
own rights or falls on account of the lack of rights. All that has come before 
this court is the application of plaintiff, and the sole question is, " Is the plain- 
tiff entitled to the writ? " 

Another point made by Mr. Rustgard is that, as the canvassing board would 
necessarily have to construe statutes, therefore their duty is quasi judicial 
and involves discretion, and they can not be mandamused in matters of judg- 
ment ; but as to that point the Supreme Court of the United States very aptly 
says : 

" Every statute to some extent requires construction by the public officer 
whose duties may be defined therein. Such officer must read the law and he 
must therefore in a certain sense construe it in order to form a judgment from 
its language what duty he is directed by the statute to perform. But that does 



102 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

not necessarily and in all cases make the duty of the officer anything other 
than a purely ministerial one. If the law direct him to perform an act in regard 
to which no discretion is committed to him, and upon which the facts existing 
he is bound to perform, then the act is ministerial, although depending upon a 
statute which requires in some degree a construction of its language by the 
officer. Unless this be so, the value of this writ is very greatly impaired. Every 
executive officer whose duty is plainly devolved upon him by statute might 
refuse to perform it, and when his refusal is brought before the court he might 
successfully plead that the performance of the duty involved the construction of 
a statute by him, and therefore it was not ministerial, and the court would on 
that account be powerless to give relief. Such a limitation of the powers of the 
court, we think, would be most unfortunate, as it would relieve from judicial 
supervision all executive officers in the performance of their duties, whenever 
they should plead that the duty required of them arose upon the construction 
of a statute, no matter how plain its language nor how plainly they violated 
their duty in refusing to perform the act required." (Roberts, Treas., v. U. S., 
176 U. S., 231.) 

I have no doubt that mandamus is the proper remedy, provided the pleadings, 
which on this demurrer must be taken as true, make out a case showing that 
the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the relief sought ; and that being the holding, 
I will proceed to a consideration of the merits of the remaining questions. 

Those questions may be epitomized in one inquiry, to wit : " Was it the plain 
duty of the canvassing board not to count the returns from the precincts ques- 
tioned in the pleadings, to wit : 



Name of precinct. 


Wicker- 
sham. 


Sulzer. 




25 
10 
7 
10 
13 
3 
8 




3 


Deering . 


6 




2 




3 




A 




1 


Vault 


2 







The proper solution of that inquiry depends upon the answer to one sub- 
sidiary question, to wit: Is the act of the legislature of 1915 providing for an 
official ballot and for a certain return to be made in case no official 
ballots were received by the election board mandatory or simple directory? If 
mandatory, then the canvassing board had no choice but to reject ; if directory 
only, then it did have discretion to reject or to count. If mandatory, then the 
demurrer should be sustained ; if directory, then the demurrer should be over- 
ruled and the proceedings quashed. 

STATUTE, WHEN MANDATORY. 

When is a statute mandatory and when is it directory? That question is 
fully answered in 36 Cyc, 1157, and many authorities are there cited upholding 
the text. To analyze those authorities or to add to them would but prolong 
this opinion to a greater length than I have at present time to devote to the 
matter. Suffice it to say, the principles laid down are truisms in the law. 
Cyc. says: 

"A mandatory provision in a statute is one the omission to follow which 
renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void, while a directory pro- 
vision is one the observance of which is not necessary to the validity of the 
proceedings. Whether a particular statute is mandatory or directory does 
not depend upon its form, but upon the intention of the legislature to be ascer- 
tained from a consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the 
consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other. 
* * * When a particular provision of a statute relates to some immaterial 
matter as to which compliance with the statute is a mere matter of convenience 
rather than substance, or where the directions of a statute are given merely 
with a viev/ to the proper, orderly, and prompt conduct of business the pro- 
vision may generally be regarded as directory. When a fair interpretation of 
a statute which dir<icts acts or proceedings to be done in a certain way shows 
that the legislature intended a compliance with such provision to be essential 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. * 103 

to the validity of tlie act or proceeding * * * then tlie statute must be 
regarded as mandatory. * * * Statutes which confer upon a public body 
or officer power to act for the sake of justice or which clothe a public body or 
officer with power to perform acts which concern the public intei-ests or the 
rights of individuals, although the language is permissive merely, will be con- 
strued as imposing duties rather than conferring privileges, and will therefore 
be regarded as mandatory." 
\ We might, however, add this : 

" Where the provision of a statute is of the very essence of the thing to be 
done it is mandatory." (Hope v. Hengate, 41 N. W., 1002; Appollo v. Clepper, 
44 Pa. Sup. Court, 396.) 

And this : 

" When the terms of a statute are such that they can not be made effective 
to the extent of giving each and all of them some reasonable operation without 
interpreting the statute as mandatory, then such interpretation should be given 
to it." (Offield, V. Davis, 40 S. E., 910.) 

And this : 

" Since the first consideration of the State is to give effect to the expressed 
M'ill of the majority, it is directly interested in having each voter cast a ballot 
in accordance with the dictates of his individual judgment. Recognizing the 
principles first stated, the courts have uniformly held that when the statute 
expressly or by fair implication declares any act to be essential to a valid 
election, or that an act shall be performed in a given manner and no other, 
such provisions are mandatory and exclusive." (Mauck v. Brown, 81 N. W., 
315.) 

AUSTRALIAN BALLOT. 

Striving, then, to get at the legislative intent in enacting the Australian 
ballot laws, we inquire what was the cause of the legislation ; what evil was 
there to be remedied ; how was it sought to remedy it ; what is the jxirpose of 
the acts ; and how will that purpose be affected by the construction put upon 
them, for we must bear in mind that in the construction of a statute the legis- 
lative intent must be made effective if it can possibly be done without doing 
violence to the plain terms of the act. 

The system of voting which prevailed in this country before the introduction 
of the Australian ballot was fairly alive with opportunities for the grossest 
frauds, and those opportunities were too often improved by ardent partisans or 
skillful and designing manipulators. Our so-called elections " smelled to 
heaven." They seldom expressed the free choice, the uubought and uncowed 
will, of the electors. All too often the political boss, the interested employer, 
the bribe giver, or others wielding sinister influence were able to enforce their 
will upon weak or needy voters and to easily ascertain whom among their 
henchmen or dependents to reward and whom to punish. There was crying 
need that the whole rotten system of open voting should be abolished. There 
was but one way to conquer the evil, and that was to tear up the noxious weed 
root and branch — to so fix it (1) that the voter voted in secret, not with some 
Svengali standing over him; (2) that he should know who the candidates were 
and be free to choose between them and not have some ready-made ballot with 
the name of only one candidate thrust into his hands; and (3) that no one 
should know for whom he voted, so that none could reward or punish him for 
his vote. There could be no halfway measures — no compromise. This system, 
first adopted in Australia, went through the usual course of all reforms — first 
laughed at and hooted to scorn, denounced as impracticable, expensive, cumber- 
some, unfair, etc. ; then gradually creeping into favor as one by one the objec- 
tions were found to be untenable, until at last, as Commonwealth after Com- 
monwealth tried it and found it good, it burst into a full fruition of usefulness, 
so that now there is scarce a State or Territory in the Union where it does not 
prevail. These being the evils of the old system sought to be i-emedied, this 
being tlie instrument with which to remedy them, the legislatures deliberately 
adopting this remedy and hedging it about with all manner of safeguards, even 
making it a crime in the officers to fail to observe it, it seems to me that it is 
idle to say that its essential terms are not mandatory but are only directory. 
The official ballot and the secret booth are the very essence of the system ; they 
are the things that make the remedy truly a remedy ; without them the evil 
sought to be remedied is not remedied. The official ballot is just as essential, 
if not more so, than the secret booth, for what does it avail of protection for the 
voter if he is to be given a ready-made ballot containing a name or names which 



104 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

he must vote, or, by writing in otlier names, thus betray his identity by his 
handwriting? Tlie simple cross of tlie Australian system made by the voter on 
the official ballot in front of the name of the person for whom he wishes to vote, 
made with no eye overlooking him, betrays no identity and gives the freest 
choice — nay, it gives the only free choice. It is not of the essence of the system 
that the official ballot should be exactly in the form prescribed by the statute, 
trifling variations not affecting the central ideas of the " officialness " and 
" indistinguishableness " of the ballot would be unimportant, but the Australian 
system with a total absense of an official ballot would be like the play of 
Hamlet with Hamlet left out. 

" Elections are a contrivance of Government which prescribe who are electors 
and how they may express their will, and it is a legitimate exercise of power to 
prescribe the description of the ballot which shall be used." (14 L. R. A., 630.) 

"These statutes (Australian ballot statutes) being designed to preserve the 
secrecy of the ballot and to prevent fraud, intimidation, and bribery ^vill gen- 
erally be considered mandatory ; and this will be so in all cases where the 
statute provides that a ballot varying from the requirements of the law shall 
not be counted." (6 Am. and Eng. Enc. law, p. 348, note 8.) 

But even if that last-mentioned provision is lacking, it (the statute) still is 
mandatory " if from a consideration of the entire act, its nature and its ob.1ect, 
the consequences which would result from not construing it as mandatory would 
defeat the very objects of the legislature." (36 Cyc, supra; see also Tuntland 
u Noble, 138 N. W., 290- (293).) 

ALASKA'S AUSTRALIAN BALLOT STATUTE. 

Now, the same considerations which have led to the adoption elsewhere of the 
Australian system prevailed in Alaska and led the legislature of 1915 to pass 
the act of that year. There was beginning to work here the sinister influences 
which led to the downfall of the old system there. Owing to the fact that 
many men in remote localities in Alaska were markedly in the power of single 
influences, there was abundant opportunity for the stifling of a free expression 
of the opinion of the electorate. And, too, the political manipulator was already 
abroad in the land; the employer exerted pressure; men had been sent to jail 
by courts for election frauds ; " the poison of the serpent was just entering the 
Garden of Eden." The legislature saw those evils, and to its credit determined 
to remedy them. That legislature was the second legislature to convene after 
Alaska had been given the small measure of home rule which it now enjoys, and 
the very fact that an Australian ballot was provided at so early a period is 
evidence of the enormity of the evil, of the imperativeness of a change, and of 
the efficacy of the Australian official ballot to effect that change. Accordingly 
the legislature enacted the law (Session laws, 1915, ch. 25), and it received the 
approval of the governor. How is it to be construed? 

OUR ACT, HOW CONSTRUED. 

Now, having in mind the former evil, the desirability of extirpating that evil 
and the means adopted to extirpate it, let us examine that statute in detail with 
a view of ascertaining the legislative intent. 

By its first section a complete change is to be wrought in a thing which is of 
the very essence. Prior to the enactment every person voting prepared, or had 
some private person prepare for him. the ballot which he was to use at the 
election. Now the change. Says the statute : 

"After the passage of this act, for all elections in the Territory of Alaska 
* * * the clerk of the district court * * * shall prepare ballots for use 
in their respective divisions * * *." 

Prepare ballots for use; not prepare them as playthings to look at, but pre- 
pare them " for use." I can not see that that can have any other meaning than 
this: "No other person shall prepare ballots" for use at the election. It seems 
to me that this construction is required not only by a consideration of the 
former evil but also by the context, to which allusion will be made later on in 
this opinion. 

Section 2 provides that the ballot which the clerk is to prepare for use at all 
elections shall be printed upon white paper ; that it shall contain the names of 
all candidates nominated and blank spaces to write in other names. We shall 
see later on that no one can write in any such names, however, except the voter 
himself or some of the officers for him in case of his disability. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. x 105 

Section 3 provides that this ballot shall be headed " Official ballot " * * *_ 
" Official " means — 

" Derived from the proper office or officer or from the proper authority ; 
made or communicated by virtue of authority ; hence authorized, as an official 
statement or report." (Century Dictionary, p. 409 — Official.) 

"And at the toj) thereof, above a perforated line, shall be duplicate stubs 
bearing consecutive numbers, one of said stubs to be retained by the election 
judges upon presenting the ballot to the voter, the other stub to be torn from 
the ballot by the election judge and compared and retained upon the return of 
the voter from the voting booth." 

This plainly indicates that this official ballot is to be handed to the voter by 
the judges and that none but the official I)allots are to be deposited in the ballot 
box, for on the return of the voter from the booth the judges are to " compare " 
the number still left on the ballot with the number which the judges have torn 
off, so as to be sure that the ballot which the voter presents is the very official 
ballot which the judges had handed him. This is further accentuated by the 
fact that — 

Section 17 provides : " That when a voter enters the polling place he shall 
be given an official ballot by one of the election judges with which he shall 
retire to the booth or screen and there mark the same for the candidates of 
his choice." 

Section 10 provides that the words " official ballot " indorsed by the clerk 
of the court shall appear on the outside of " every ballot." The object of this 
is to provide an additional check on the character of the ballot as being 
official — i. e., authorized, instead of " nonofficial " — i. e.. not authorized. Why 
such precaution if a failure to vote the official ballot is a mere irregularity — 
if the use of the official ballot at elections is merely directory? 

The act further provides that the clerk is to forward to the United States 
commissioner 100 of these official ballots for every 50 voters in the recording 
district and that the commissioners in those recording districts shall deliver 
the proper number of such ballots to the judges of election in each precinct, 
and section 19 provides that when a ballot is marred by the voter he may 
receive a second, and if necessary a third, but no more, and that tlie marred 
ballots must be preserved by the judges of the election and placed with the 
unused ballots. 

Section 19 provides : 

" That any voter who is blind or otherwise incapable of marking his or her 
ballot may demand that the judges of election assist him or her, and the 
judges of the election shall do so." 

The judges of election shall do this — it is not left for some one else to do 
this ; no one else can do it. 

Section 24 provides a heavy fine for any officer who willfully and corruptly 
fails to do his duty under this act. 

Section 30 provides : 

" If any judge, inspector, clerk, or other officer of an election shall open 
or mark, by folding or otherwise, any ticket presented by such elector at such 
election, or attempt to find out the names thereon, or suffer the same to be done 
by any other person before such ticket is deposited in the ballot box, such 
judge, inspector, or clerk shall be guilty of a felony." 

Section 34 provides against the unlawful printing or distributing of these 
official ballots, and section 38 against the having of them in one's possession 
and against the counterfeiting of them. 

I think the foregoing consideration of the evil to be remedied, the intent and 
manifest purpose of the legislature to remedy it, the appropriateness and very 
efficacy of the remedy adopted, if mandatory, and the total insufficiency of a 
directory statute to remedy it. coupled with the provisions of the act heretofore 
mentioned, clearly evidence the intention of the legislature that no loophole 
should be left through which the old system could crawl back into vogue — 
clearly manifest their intention that no nonofficial ballot should be taken as the 
expression of the will of the electors or should have any efficacy whatsoever. 
In the very nature of things such must be the consequence of nonofficial 
ballots, else the entire act fails of its purpose and it might just as well not 
have passed. If, notwithstanding the statute designed to remedy the evil of 
open voting, notwithstanding the safeguards and the checks which the statute 
has thrown around the new system, voters are freely permitted to cast non- 
official ballots, then, indeed, was the act of the legislature but " a sounding brass 
and a tinkling cymbal." 



106 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

There is, however, one other section of this act whicli, to my mind, adds to 
the considerations and provisions heretofore adverted to a proliibition of such 
positive nature as to remove all doubt about the character of the act, and that 
is the twenty-first section, which provides : 

" Tlaat in any precinct where * * * no official ballots have been received 
the voters are permitted to write or print their ballots." 

This is equivalent to saying, "In no other case are they permitted to write 
or print their ballots. The first section liad provided that the official ballot is 
the one which is for use at the elections, and the twenty-first section is the 
only section which provides for any emergency under which any other ballot is 
permitted to be cast; that, therefore, is the only emergency. This under the 
canon of construction known to all lawyers, " The expression of one is the 
exclusion of all others." 

If the legislature had expressly (i. e., in so many words) declared that a 
nonofficial ballot should not be counted, the matter of rejecting such ballots 
would not be open to question — fraud or no fraud, disfranchisement or not 
disfranchisement. 

Kirkpatrick v.' Board of Canvassers, 44 S. E., 470, second column, where the 
court says : 

" No case has been brought to the attention of the court in which it has 
been held that where a mandatory statute has been violated, it must be further 
shown that such violation was accompanied by actual fraud in order to make 
the ballots invalid, and it is not believed that any such case exists." 

And in first column on same page : 

" Such statutes are intended to prevent fraudulent voting, and if the legis- 
lature is of the opinion that the general good to be derived from their strict 
enforcement will more than counterbalance the evils resulting from the occa- 
sional throwing out of votes honestly cast, the courts can not consider the mere 
question of iwlicy." 

In favor of the contention that our act is directory is only the fact that 
the act does not say in express terms that no other ballot than tlie official 
ballot shall be received or counted ; but we have sean that the nature of an 
act as to being mandatory or directory is not determined by the form of the 
words but by the intent of the legislature. It is mandatory " if from a con- 
sideration of the entire act, its nature and its object, the consequences which 
would result from not construing it as mandatory Avould defeat the very objects 
of the legislature." (36 Cyc, supra.) 

Many an act is held to be mandatory although there are no mandatory 
words, and many an act is held to be directory although the words be man- 
datory. In construction of statutes and contracts the law looks through the 
letter to the spirit, for " the letter killeth but the spirit givsth life." 

I think, therefore, that the act of 1915 was mandatory, and absolutely " pro- 
hibits the casting of any ballot but the official ballot, provided that where no 
official ballots have been received the voter may write his own ballot." That is 
the one and only instance where a departure is authorized. It is not an excep- 
tion ; it is a proviso. Being a proviso in a general statute, he who relies upon 
the fact that any given case is within the proviso has the burden of proof, and 
the absence of proof being within the proviso amounts to the same thing as 
prima facie evidence that the case is not within the proviso. 

CANVASSING BOARD CKEATUEE OF STATUTE CAN NOT GO BEHIND RETURNS. 

Now, a canvassing board is a creature of statute and its duties and powers 
are prescribed by statute. I think it will be conceded that the canvassing 
board can not go behind the returns, but that they must canvass them and 
determine from them alone how much they shall credit to each candidate. 

WHAT ARE THE RETURNS? 

The returns of an election are those papers, documents, and things, and 
only those papers, documents, and things, which the statute prescribes and 
orders to be sent to the officers designated. 

"The question as to what papers constitute the official returns is purely a 
matter of statutory regulation." (15 Cyc, 376.) 

I think this is the universal rule, and that the books will be searched in 
vain to find anything to the contrary. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 107 

Returnine:, then, to our statute on the subject, \A-e find it provided by section 
402 of the Compield Laws of 1913 : 

" The election board at each polling place, as soon as the polls are closed, 
shall immediately publicly proceed to open the ballot boxes and count and can- 
vass the votes cast, and they shall thereupon, under their hands and seals, make 
out in duplicate a certificate of the result of such election, specifying the num- 
ber of votes, in words and figures, cast for each candidate ; and they shall then 
immediately carefully and securely seal up in one envelope one of said duplicate 
certificates and ballots cast and all affidavits made, and mail such envelope, 
with said papers inclosed, at the nearest post office, by registered mail if possible, 
duly addressed to the governor of Alaska at his place of residence, with the 
postage prepaid thereon." 

The things required to be sent to the governor, and which, according to the 
statute, constitute the return, are (1) certificate of the election board as to the 
result of said election; (2) one of the registers of votes; (3) all the ballots 
cast; (4) affidavits (of challenged voters). 

The canvassing board is to canvass and compile that return — not simply a 
part of that return. For the canvassing board to confine itself to a considera- 
tion of only a part of that return would not be to canvass that return. When 
the statute directed the duplicate register and all ballots to be sent to the 
governor, in addition to the certificate of the judges, it must have had an object 
in so doing. If the canvassing board is to take the certificate as the be all and 
end of all the returns ; if the canvassing board is a mere adding machine to 
totalize the votes as certified by the election board, why the requirement that 
the registration book and the ballots be sent to the board? Why not simply 
provide that the certificate of the judges be sent? The very object and purpose 
of requiring the register of votes and all ballots to be sent along with the 
certificate and making them a part of the return must have been so that they 
say all come under the eye of the canvassing board, the one acting as a check 
upon the other, and that from the return as a whole the canvassing board shall 
add the figures of votes cast in any given precinct to the other returns likewise 
canvassed. 

Let us suppose the board to canvass only a part of the return. It might well 
happen that in the part not canVassed something appears which absolutely nul- 
lifies the effect of that part which is canvassed or renders the whole return so 
uncertain and indefinite that it can not be intelligently canvassed at all. For 
instance, the register of votes is as much a part of the return as the certificate 
of the election board, and so also are the ballots. Now, suppose that that part 
of the return which is called the register of votes should show that in a given 
precinct only 150 votes were cast and that the number of ballots returned was 
250, and that the certificate of the election board showed that one of the candi- 
dates received 1,136 votes and the other candidate 64 votes in that precinct ; 
it would be very evident that the certificate and the registration book and the 
ballots could not all speak the truth. The canvassing board surely would have 
to reject that entire return, for each part thereof would be utterly antagonistic 
to every other part thereof, and all can not stand; and the canvassing board 
could not go behind the return to find out which part of the return was true 
and which was false. If, however, the return taken altogether speaks intelli- 
gently, the canvassing board must hear what it says. 

CHOGGIUNG. 

Opening then the return, the sealed envelope (from Choggiung precinct, for in- 
stance) for the purpose of canvassing the return from that precinct, what did 
the canvassing board find? The answer is that it found the return from that 
precinct consisting of (1) certificate from the election board that Wiekersham 
had received 25 and Sulzer3 votes ; (2) register of voters showing 28 votes cast; 
(3) 28 nonofficial ballots, being the 28 votes aforesaid. Here the return is 
speaking and it is speaking intelligently. There is no doubt or uncertainty 
as to what it says, no occasion for construction. It means what it says, and 
it can not be taken to mean more than it says. Each one of these psuedo 
ballots has a voice which cries, " I am a pretender." Twenty-eight distinct 
and separate voices from Choggiung, all there are in Choggiung, crying in no 
uncertain tone, " I am a pretender. Look at me ; you can see it in my face. 
I am no real ballot, such as the law requires a freeman to cast if he would 
make known his preference ; I am only a slip of paper, an outcast by the law." 
And so they are pretenders, all of them ; looking at them one can tell. To 



108 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

tell that is not to exercise discretion or judgment. It is but to open one's 
eyes and take in the things that appear to be attentive and hear the voices 
that speak. 

And this language of self-denunciation which each of these ballots speaks is 
not contradictory of the certificate of the .ludges — it is in perfect consonance 
with what the .judges s:iy. They, the judges, say by their return inclosing 
these slips of paper, " There were 28 nonofficial ballots cast in Choggiung, of 
which 25 bore the name of Wickersham and 3 bore the name of Sulzer." They 
might just as well have said : " Twenty-eight electors met together in Chog- 
giung and viva voce 25 were for Wickersham and 3 were for Sulzer." They 
might just as well have said : " Twenty-eight electors met together in Chog- 
giung and cast 28 pebbles into a box ; 25 of the pebbles were white and by 
agreement are for Wickersham ; 3 of the pebbles were black and by agreement 
are for Sulzer." 

The statute says that the canvassing board shall issue the certificate to 
" the person who has received the greatest number of votes." It says that the 
voting shall be by the "official ballot." Are such things ballots; are such 
things votes? Do they express a preference in the manner required by law? 
If not, they have no validity whatsoever ; can not be cast, can not be counted. 
A nonofficial ballot is no ballot at all ; it is not simply an illegal ballot. It 
is a void ballot. If a nonofficial ballot can not be cast it certainly can not be 
counted. If the nonofficial ballots from Chogclung are to be counted, then why 
not count all nonoflacial ballots? And if that is to be done, what is the necessity 
of any official ballots? 

Undoubtedly there are many cases which hold that the canvassing board 
has no authority to count the ballots, to even look at them, to even hear their 
voices, but they are all cases where the ballots are no part of the return to be 
canvassed ; with us they are. and being a part of the return it is just as miich 
the duty of the canvassing board to canvass them as it is to canvass any other 
papers or things constituting the return, for — 

" In arriving at the result of an election the canvassing board is not to con- 
sider the judges' certificate alone or any constituent of the returns as a con- 
trolling force, but all are to be considered." (Patten v. People, 62 111. App., 
617.) 

And so our canvassing board is not authorized by any statute to accord 
more importance to the certificate of the board than to the register of votes 
or the ballots. All of these are a part of one return ; they all come to the can- 
vassing board in one and the same envelope from one and the same source, 
vouched for by the same persons.* All are of equal authenticity and importance, 
and in this case all say one and the same thing in one and the same language. 

When the canvassing board saw this return it was its plain duty to reject it 
because it showed on its face that there had been no election held at Chog- 
giung. This would involve no act of discretion, it would be but to obey the 
plain terms of the law, for 

" Where election returns are false upon their face and show reckless dis- 
regard of the terms of statute, thev should be disregarded altogether." (15 
Cycs.. 381.) 

In State v. McElroy (32 Am. S. R.. 356) the court say: 

" The question for our determination is : Should a ballot cast be counted in 
ascertaining the result of an election on the face of which the printed name of 
a candidate was erased, and the name of another candidate substituted in 
writing? 

"Under the act of 1877, to regulate and maintain the freedom and purity 
of elections and to punish persons for false, fraudulent, or illegal voting, the 
names of persons voted for were required to be written or printed on one 
ticket. The statute applying is: Section 23 of the said act was amended by 
act 101 of 1882, as follows : ' That all the names of persons voted for shall be 
printed on one ticket or ballot of white paper, of uniform size and quality, to 
be furnished by the secretary of the State. 

" The right of suffrage being a political and not a natural right, it is within 
the power of the State to prescribe how it shall be exercised. The manner of 
voting, provided by statute, is one of the reasonable regulations. The limita- 
tions imposed for the purpose of guarding against fraud, undue influence, and 
oppression, and of maintaining the secrecy of the ballot, are within the legis- 
lative and police powers. That the ballots shall be printed does not add to the 
constitutional qualification of the voter, and, therefore, falls within the general 
authority of legislative laws. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 109 

" The legislative intent is clearly expressed. In the first act, that of 1887, 
tlie words were : ' The ballot shall be written or printed ' ; in the amending 
act, ' it shall be printed.' The legislative will can not be misunderstood. The 
intention of the legislature should control absolutely. When that intention is 
clearly ascertained, those upon whom it devolves to execute the statute have no 
other duty than to follow the legislative will. 

" While all the minute details of the statutes relating to elections are not 
mandatory, they are mandatory in requiring that the ballot shall be printed. 
The positive requirement of the statute does not admit of its being treated as 
merely directory. By qualifying a statute as directory, its requirement is 
avoided ; the Intention of the legislature, however plain, is defeated. 

" It is desirable that the legislature should declare in what respect they 
mean any particular provision to be void in event of noncompliance with its 
tei-ms, and what consequence they intend shall result from noncompliance. la 
the absence of this great difficulties arise. We are not willing, however, in 
the absence of such a declaration, to hold a law as directory in cases in which 
the intention of the legislature is clearly and emphatically expressed. We 
prefer a strict construction to the ' extensive and comprehensive.' Each has 
able advocates and many authorities in its support. 

" The grounds of objection urged on the part of the respondent, such as that 
the purpose of voting is to ascertain the intention of the voter and the will 
of the majority, and that a ballot cast by an elector in good faith should not 
be rejected for failure to comply with the law in matters over which he had 
no control, if broadly and liberally applied, would defeat the object of the 
statute relating to the printing of the tickets on a ballot of white paper, 
furnished by the secretary of state, and would render ineffectual the provisions 
applying to the throwing out and not counting folded tickets, and even those 
relative to the required certificate of registration, although the purpose of 
the law is well defined and clear. 

" Constitutional and statutory provisions for the conduct of elections are 
either mandatory or directory, and a violation of mandatory provisions will 
avoid the election, without regard to the motive, of the person guilty of the 
violation, and without reference to the result (6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 
325.) 

" In Rhode Island the law requires that each ballot shall be so printed as 
to give each voter a clear opportunity to designate by cross marks, in a. 
sufficient margin at the right of the name of each candidate, his choice of 
candidates, and that each voter shall prepare his ballot by marking in the 
appropriate margin or place a cross opposite the name of the candidate of 
his choice, and that no voter shall place any mark upon his ballot by which 
it may be afterward identified. The court decided that no mark other than the 
cross can be used ; that it must be placed in the margin opposite the name 
of the candidate. (Am. Dig. of 1891, p. 1419.) 

" In many of the States there are statutes prescribing the form of the 
ballots, the kind of paper, and prohibiting any marks, figures, or devices by 
which one can be distinguished from another. These statutes, being designed 
to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, and to prevent fraud, intimidation, and 
bribery will generally be considered mandatory. (6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 
349.) Directions given by a sovereign in i-egard to a matter over which his 
power is conceded, would, according to the ordinary use of language, be held 
to involve, as its correlative, obedience. (Sedgwick's Statutory and Constitu- 
tional Law, p. 318, note.) 

" These decisions maintain the principle that mandatory provisions not com- 
plied with in an election will result in its avoidance, wthout reference to motive 
or person. 

" In those States in which the ballots must be printed, and the name of the 
candidate designated by cross marks, the required marginal notes must be 
placed as required by statute. That the voter should readily comply with the 
legislative will is clearly expressed. The voters who cast the 67 ballots did 
not comply with the statute. In an organized state of society the majority bind 
the minority by complying with mandatory laws in expressing the popular will. 
Judgment affirmed at appellant's costs. 

No return from Choggiung that no official ballots had been received for the 
election there. Hence canvassing board not to presume that they had not been 
received. 

I say it was the duty of the board not to count the returns from Choggiung 
precinct, because the ballots, which are a part of the return, show on their face 



110 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

that they were void and there was nothing on the face of the returns to militate 
against this fact. 

There is not in the returns any certificate of the judges of election as to the 
facts, if any there were, which prevented the use of the official ballots. The 
twenty-first section of the said satute of the Alaska Legislature of 1915 provides 
that where no official ballots have been received " the voters are permitted to 
write or print their ballot, but the judges of election shall in this event 
certify to the facts which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certifi- 
cate must accompany and be a part of the election returns." So that it is 
seen that in addition to the requirements of the act of Congress as to what 
the return consists of, the legislature has made another requirement to be 
complied with under a certain condition of affairs. The clear inference is 
that when there no such certificate there are no such facts as call for such 
certificate. Certainly the canvassing board had no power to presume that any 
such facts existed. The return speaks intelligently and conveys a clear mean- 
ing, and the canvassing board can not go behind this return. 

It is contended that the election officers are presumed to have done their 
duty by not allowing nonofficial ballots to be cast except for good reason, and 
have simply neglected to certify as to the facts justifying their action, that the 
canvassing board will presume that. If the canvassing board can indulge in 
any presumption at all it would seem that it must be the presumption that no 
such facts existed, else the certificate would have stated them. If, by virtue 
of the presumption that the officers of election have done their duty, the can- 
vassing board is to infer that no official ballots had been received at Cliog- 
giung, what becomes of that equally as strong presumption that if the official 
ballots had not been received the election board would have done its duty 
and stated that facts in the petition ; and what becomes of that other equally 
as strong presumption that the clerk of the court performed his duty to mail 
the official ballots to the commissioner of the recording precinct in time for 
the commissioner to receive them before election ; that the commissioner per- 
formed his duty of mailing the proper number to the judges in time for the 
judges to receive them ; that the United States mail did its duty by duly carry- 
ing and delivering to the addresses such mail matter as is deposited in the 
post office? 

But the truth is that this is not a matter for the presumption of the can- 
vassing board — it is a matter of plain language. The statute says, " but in 
this event the facts which prevented the use of the official ballots " must be 
stated in a " certificate which must accompany and be made a part of . the 
election returns " — the statute thus says what evidence the canvassing board 
must have before it before it can count unofficial ballots, and it can substitute 
none other— least of all a nebulous presumption. 

It is urged that if, in fact, no official ballots had been received in Choggiung 
and the voters were obliged to make their own liallots or not vote, then to 
reject the return from Choggiung is to disfranchise all the voters in that 
precinct for no fault of their own, but simply because the election board 
omitted to certify to the fact which was the cause of no official ballot being 
cast. This, in a sense, is true; on the other hand, it is likewise tiHie that if 
in that one precinct official ballots had been received, but the election judges 
had not required them to be used, and if in all the other precincts the' lawful 
ballots had been used, and the 28 unlawful votes at Choggiung would change 
the result, then all who voted lawfully for Sulzer are disfranchised by the 
25 in Choggiung who cast the prohibited ballots for Wickersham — I say dis- 
franchised, for to nullify by a prohibited ballot the effect of a lawful ballot is 
virtuallv to disfranchise the voter of the lawful ballot. 

But in truth and in fact the argument of possible disfranchisement does not 
enter into the case, for the official ballot is the only instrument by means of 
which the elector can express his will at the election, save in the exceptional 
case provided for in section 21. 

" The answer is that when an elector attempts to express his will at an 
election by the use, either through design or accident, of ballots which the law 
declares shall not be counted the courts have no power to help him. Had these 
ballots been misplaced by design or some preconcerted arrangement between 
the county clerk and the candidates whose names appear thereon, or some of 
them, the' voters using them might be as innocent then as they appear to be in 
the case at bar; but to hold under such circumstances that the votes must 
nevertheless be counted would be to suggest an easy method of defeating the 
fundamental purpose of the statute." (14 L. R. A., 629.) 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. Ill 

" The final deposit of a legal ballot in the box is the act of voting. It matters 
not that one sign the roster and formally present to the election officer what 
purports to be his ballot: nevertheless if such ballot is not expressive of 
any wish or preference of the voter which under the law may be considered 
and given effect, such person has not voted, and his vote should not be counted, 
even in the determination of the number of persons who voted at the election." 
(City of Inglewood r. Key, 132 P. R., 783.) 

Again, the action of the canvassing board neither enfranchises nor dis- 
franchises any voter. It sits merely to determine to whom to issue a cer- 
tificate of election. This certificate of election is not final. The House of Rep- 
resentatives is the tribunal before which the contest of election comes. In 
its wisdom it may say if it chooses, " It is true that the certificate of the 
judges of election does not state that no official ballots were received at 
Choggiung, but it is possible — probable, even — that none were received, and 
that that is the reason the judges allowed these otherwise prohibited ballots 
to be cast, and by inadvertence or neglect they omitted to say that was the 
reason; at any rate we will investigate the matter — we will heai- oral testimony; 
we will consider affidavits or get at the very truth of the matter in some other 
way." Or even, if the election board had actually certified that no oflicial 
ballots had been received and that that was the reason none had been cast 
or returned, still the House could go behind those returns in investigating the 
matter. It could say, " The matter is suspicious, it is not likely that no official 
ballots had been received, Choggiung is a cannery site in the western part of 
Alaska; very likely the cannery boss is also the boss of voters; we are not 
disposed to believe this certificate of the judges ; we will take extraneous testi- 
mony about these nonofficial ballots." These things the House of Representa- 
tives could do and say, because it is clothed with plenary power to seat whom- 
soever it pleases, certificate or no certificate. But the canvassing board has 
no such power ; it can consider only the returns as made to it, and it can not 
allow those returns to be supplemented by extraneous affidavits or, by in- 
dulging in presumptions, make them say what they do not say. Besides as 
above stated, if they are going to indulge in any presumption which presump- 
tion are they to indulge in? 

" The board has no power to procure corrected returns or to receive testi- 
mony aliunde either to sustain or to invalidate these returns." (15 Cyc, 
note 5. and cases cited, p. 385. ) 

All the argument about disfranchising the voter, then, might be appropriate 
if made to the House of Representatives on the contest of election, but it has 
no application to the duties of the canvassing board ; but I doubt that the 
argument is entitled to much weight wherever made, for the reason that the 
elective franchise is not one of the natural rights of man but from the earliest 
times has always been hedged about with some restrictions of positive statutory 
enactments. 

" Elections are a contrivance of government which prescribes who are elec- 
tors and how they may express their will, and it is a legitimate exercise of 
po^^'er to prescribe the description of the ballot which shall be used." (Oglesby 
V. Segman, 58 Miss., 502 cited in People r. Board, 14 L. R. A., 630 (N. Y.).) 

Notwithstanding incidental disfranchisement — 

" We would still be obliged to hold that it would be far better that their 
votes should be deemed ineffectual than that the fundamental purpose of an 
important public statute should be subverted, and. in the struggle to save those 
votes by judicial construction the door should be thrown open for evasions 
of the statute which might revive evils far more dangeroiis to the public wel- 
fare and can possibly follow the exclusion of a few hundred votes in a single 
country." (14 L. R. A., p. 630.) 

(See also Slaymaker r. Phillips, 42 P. R., 1050; Orr r. Bailey, 80 N. W., 498.) 

In other words, " Much better that a few voters at Choggiung should lose 
their votes than that the positive requirement for an official ballot should be 
made a thing of " shreds and patches." 

NUSHAGAK AND BONNIFIELD. 

By the answer of the canvassing board the precincts of Nushagak and 
Bonnifield are in the same category as Choggiung, Nushagak, and Bonnifield 
total Wickershame 38, Sulzer 7. 



112 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

DEERING AND TJTICA. 

The answer of tlie canvassing board as to the precincts of Deering and Utica 
is also substantially the same as that as to Choggiung ; it contains, however, 
the statement of two of the canvassing board made in their answer to the 
alternative writ that said board is now in receipt of a telegram from Adams, 
the clerk of the court at Nome, that "certificate Utica judges issued January 
38, showing why official ballots not used received to-day ; affidavit of one certifi- 
cate of second judge of election Deering precinct dated February 2 of same 
tenor also received ; copies mailed." 

A certificate or aflidavit made after election returns have been forwarded to 
and received by the canvassing board is of no avail. Such is not a part of the 
return which the canvassing board can consider. Congress might consider it, 
but the board can not. 

" Only such papers as the statute requires may be regarded as election re- 
turns. If the officers go further and make statements on their own responsi- 
bility such statements should be regarded." (15 Cyc, 376.) 

"It was held that such paper (extraneous evidence) was properly excluded 
as the judges of election had no right to make such statements, if not being 
one of their prescribed duties." (Smith v. Lawrence, 49 N. W., 7 (S. Dak.), 

No other certificate of the officers of election than that provided by statute 
should be made, and if made should be disregarded. 

" Where a certain kind of return is required to be made, and the manner of 
making it is provided for and the statute is silent beyond that, then the return 
required to be made is the only return which the law will recognize." (Hughes 
V. Parker, 65 P. R., 271.) 

It is obvious, then, that the receipt of the telegram can not change the situa- 
tion. The situation is exactly the same as it was when the return was received 
with nonofficial ballots and no certificate of judges as to why they were used. 
The return from these precincts of Utica and Deering, then, are in the same 
category as those from Choggiung, Nushagak. and Bonnifield. Deering and 
Utica total : Wickersham, 23 ; Sulzer, 10. 



As to the precinct of Vault, the allegation of the petition is that " no certifi- 
cate of the result of the election in said precinct specifying the number of votes 
cast for each candidate accompanied or was included in said returns." It is 
admitted in the answer of the canvassing board that the judges did not sign 
any such certificate, but it is further alleged that " the canvassing board re- 
ceived from the clerk of the United States District Court for the Fourth Judi- 
cial Division, in which said precinct is located, the ' certificate of clerk to elec- 
tion returns,' bearing the najiies of the election judges for said voting precinct 
and duly certified by the clerk of the court as a full, true, and correct copy 
of the original on file in his office." 

The statute provides that the judges of each election precinct shall be three 
in number (C. L., sec. 396, last par.) ; that "the judges constituting the elec- 
tion board " (i. e., these judges or a majority of them) shall make the return 
" under their hands and seals " in duplicate, all except ballots ; that one dupli- 
cate of their certificate and the register of voters shall be sent to the clerk of 
the court (under their hands and seals) and that the other duplicate and all 
ballots shall be sent to the canvassing board ; that the canvassing board shall 
canvass what is sent to them, but that in case no such return is received by them 
they are to canvass the certificate of election which the election board sent to 
the clerk of the court (under their hands and seals). It will be seen that the 
said two members of the canvassing board say in substance that they received 
no returns from the election board and proceeded to canvass a certified copy 
of some certificate made by the clerk of the election. If they did, then what 
they canvassed was not properly authenticated. It is not the clerk who is to 
sign the certificate of election ; it is the election board ; consequently the cer- 
tificate of the clerk of the election to the clerk of the court is not the certificate 
required by law. 

" The return must be authenticated by the official certificate and signature of 
the election board, and according to the weight of authority ' it is essential to 
the validity of the returns that it bear the signatures of a majority at least of 
the officers who conducted the election.' " 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER, 113 

15 Cyc, 376, 4, and cases from Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, 
cited in note 47, especially Simon r. Durham (10 Oreg., 52), the purport of which 
is expressed in the syllabus, as follows : 

" Election returns — Canvassing boards. — A board of canvassers, in the exer- 
cise of ministerial functions only, have no power, in making their canvass, to 
consider as election returns any paper not duly authenticated in the mode pro- 
vided by the statute. 

" Idem — Unautheuticated papers can not be considered. — An attempted can- 
vass, in which the result declared is based upon papers not ths authenticated, 
may be treated as a nullity by the party injured, and unless the powers of the 
board have otherwise terminated he is entitled to the writ of mandamus to 
compel them to reconvene and make a legitimate canvass of the proper returns." 

By statute in some jurisdictions it is made the duty of the canvassers to send 
for new and amended returns to be signed by the proper parties (15 Cyc, 
379-10), but we have no such statute. 

The return from vault, then, not being authenticated by the proper officers, 
can not be canvassed. Vault totals : Wickersham, 8 ; Sulzer, 2. 



As to the precinct of Nizina, the allegation in the petition is " that no official 
ballot was used at Nizina, and that the return contained no certificate explain- 
ing the facts which prevented the use of the official ballot." 

The truth of this allegation is not denied in the answer of Messrs. Strong 
and Davidson, of the canvassing board, to the alternative writ of mandamus. 
Under the strict rules of pleading, therefore, the allegation would be taken as 
admitted. The said answer, however, does state that " so far as the canvassing 
board could determine the only irregularity shown on the face of the returns 
was that one of the three election judges had sworn the other two, but there 
was nothing to show that he had himself been sworn, although he had signed 
the oath form with the other two judges." 

If the allegation in the petition is true, then Nizina is in the same category 
as Choggiung, Nushagak, and Bonnifield ; if the allegation in this answer is 
true, then I am of opinion that that is, an irregularity only — not going to the 
essence of things, but only to their form, and hence is directory only. 

" The Board could not reject the return if a majority of the judges were 
sworn and signed " (Tanner v. Deen, 33 S. E., 832.) 

Whichever is taken as true, it could not affect the ruling on this demurrer, 
for Nizina totals only Wickersham 7, Sulzer 5. 

To recapitulate then, the canvassing board must not count the returns from 
Choggiung, Nushagak, Bonnifield, Utica, Deering, or Vault. These precincts 
total : Wickersham 69, Sulzer 19. 

It is suggested by Mr. Rustgard that if the court had before it the returns 
from all the precincts in Alaska it might appear that there were defects in the 
returns from other precincts, sufficient in gravity and number to turn the result 
obtained if the ballots (?) in the precincts discussed herein Avere rejected. 

This, of course, is possible but the pleadings disclose nothing of that nature. 
On the contrary the answers allege that counting the precincts heretofore ad- 
verted to Wickersham has 6,490 votes, and Sulzer 6,459 ; that the canvassing 
board has finished the canvass of all votes and was about to issue a certificate 
of election to Wickersham when the alternative writ was served upon them. 

It is obvious that if the votes be rejected which t^ie court has decided should 
be rejected, Wickersham's 6,490 Avill suffer a diminution of 69, leaving him only 
6,421, and Sulzer's 6,4.59 will suffer a diminution of 19, leaving him 6,440 — in 
which event the certificate of eleciton should go not to Wickersham but to 
Sulzer. «» 

The demurrer will be sustained. 

(Signed) Robert W. Jennings. 

/ 
In the District Court for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. 

The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles 

A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board, for the Territory of 

Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 

Pugh, defendants. No. 1593-A. 

The above-named defendants, J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, re- 
spectfully submit to this honorable court, that in addition to the facts set forth 
in their original answer to the alternative writ, that .a protest against the 

13289—17 8 



114 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 



counting of the votes of certain precincts in tlie different judicial divisions of 
Alaslia, was filed with the canvassing board on March 21, a copy of which it 
attached hereto, which sets forth in detail the precincts and the alleged irregu- 
larities charged in the protest, and it appears from the records of the canvassing 
board that irregularities of different kinds did actually exist in many of the 
\oting precincts of the Territory, and the Board being without legal counsel 
therefore begs to submit the protest herein referred to and respectfully ask 
to be instructed as to what disposition the said board should make of said 
protest. 



Governor. 



Surveyor Oeneral. 

To the governor, surveyor general, and collector of customs, constituting the 
canvassing board for the Terntory of Alaska. 

Sirs : The district court of this division having construed the election law 
to require the board to disregard election returns which fail to contain the vari- 
ous documents provided for by law, I protest against the counting of the fol- 
lowing returns for the reasons below more specifically set out, to wit : 

FIRST DIVISION. 



Precincts. 


Defects in return. 


Beaver Falls 


No register of voters. 


Craig 


No register of voters. Judges of election not sworn. 


Chichasoff 


No register of voters. 


Chilkat 


Conflict between certificate of result and ballots cast. No register of 


Douglas, No. 1 


voters. 
No register of voters. 




No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Tenakee 


No register of voters. 


Gold Creek.. 


Do. 


Hoonah 


No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Hadlev 


No register of voters. 


Juneau, No. 1 


No certificate of result of election. No election register. 


Jualpa. . . 


Judges not sworn. 


Loring 


No certificate of result forwarded with return or constituting a part 




thereof whatever. Certificate was filed separatelv and subsequently 
to the canvassing of the returns by the board. Election returns not 
sworn to. Judges not sworn. 
No register of voters. 




No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Sitka 


No register of voters. 




Judges not sworn. 




No election register. 







SECOND DIVISION. 



Council 

St. Michael, No. 1 . 



No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 
Do. 



THIRD DIVISION. 



Anchorage, No. 1 

Chignik 

Chitina 

Girdwood 

Katalla 

La Touche 

Moose Creek 

Naknek 

Ninilchick 

Ouzinkie 

Roosovelt 

Valdez 

Wassila 



Judges of election not sworn. No registration of voters. No register 

of voters. 
No registration of voters. 

Do. * 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No register of voters and no registration. 

No registration of voters. Certificate signed by only two judges. 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No official ballots used. Voters did not either -write or print their own 
ballots, but the ballots were printed for them by the Democratic can- 
didate for Delegate. No certificate showing the facts which prevented 
the use of official ballots. 

No registration of voters. 

Judges not sworn. No registration of voters. 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No registration of voters. 
Do. - 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 
FOURTH DIVISION. 



115 



Precincts. 


Defects in return. 


Brooks 


No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Circle 


No registration of voters. 


Fort Yukon 


Do. 


Fort Gibbon 


No registration of voters. No notice or order of election. 




No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Hot Springs 


No registration of voters nor any register of voters. Judges not sworn. 




Judges not sworn. 


Long 


No registration of voters. No register of voters. 


Moose Creek 


No register of voters. 


Nenana 


No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Nulato 


No register of voters. 


Ophir 


No registration of voters. 


Tokotna. . 


No registration of voters. No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


West Fork 


No certificate of result included \vith return. No certificate why non- 
official ballots were used filed with return as part thereof. No return 
on file at the time canvassing board convened. 
No registration of voters. No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 







It will be observed that the district court holds that no document which was 
not inclosed with and forwarded to the governor's office as a part of the 
original return can be counted or taken into consideration by the board. In 
many cases efforts were made by the board and the attorney general to secure 
amended returns and in many of those cases supplemental and amendatory 
documents were filed ; all of these should, under the decision of the court, be 
disregarded. It will be observed that the reasons which influenced the court 
to hold that the returns from Vault should be disregarded by the board also 
are applicable to Precinct No. 1 ot Juneau and other precincts. 

I make this protest as a friend of Hon. James Wickersham and in interest 
of public justice, in my capacity as a citizen of the United States and of the 
Territory of Alaska. 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) Emery Valentine. 

Dated at Juneau, Alaska, this 21st day of March, A. D. 1917. 



United States District Court, First Division, District of Alaska, Judge's 
Chambers, Juneau ; Robert W. Jennings, judge. 

March 22, 1917. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, Oovernor, and 

Hon. Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor General, of the Territory of Alaska, 
Juneau, Alaska. 

Gentlemen : At your request, as I am informed, the clerk of this court has 
brought to my attention a certain communication signed by you, in which you 
state that a protest has been filed with the canvassing board by Mr. Emery 
Valentine, of this city, suggesting the rejection of the votes of certain precincts 
cast at the last election for Delegate to Congress, and in which you state that 
the " board begs to submit the protest herein referred to and respectfully asks 
to be instructed as to what disposition the said board should make of said 
protest," and in reply I have to state : 

Your communication is entitled in the cause " The Territory of Alaska on 
the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. 
Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants, No. 1593." 

The above-entitled cause is a proceeding brought in this court for the issu- 
ance of a mandamus compelling you to reject, i. e., not count the return from 
certain precincts stated in the petition on account of certain alleged fatal 
defects — not irregularities, but defects — in the return from said precincts. 
An alternative writ of mandamus was issued and served upon you, and you 
were also enjoined from issuing the certificate of election to James Wicker- 
sham. To that alternative writ and the petition on which it was founded you 
have made answer, stating: 

" That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election 
held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that 



116 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

the official tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and 
checked, and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the 
several candidates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska: Lena Morrow Lewis, 
1,346 votes ; Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersham, 6,490 votes." 
(Par. 1.) 

And further : 

" That in pursuance of such action by the canvassing board, and prior to 
the service of the alternative writ of mandamus upon the members thereof, a 
certificate of election was prepared by said board for issuance to James Wicker- 
sham as Delegate to Congress from Alaska for the term beginning March 5, 
1917 ; but that before said certificate had been signed and issued by the board 
the members thereof were served with the writ of mandamus herein." (Par. 2.) 

Your answer further avers that the allegations of the fact made in the 
petition as to the reasons why the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Utica, 
Nushagak, Bonnifield, and Vault should not be counted were true, but that 
you considered that nevertheless said precincts should be counted and that 
you coimted them. 

The plaintifE demurred to yoitr answer and that brought up the question 
as to whether or not on your answer the certificate should be issued to Wicker- 
sham or Sulzer. 

It further appeared from your answer that you had no attorney. At the 
hearing on this demurrer Mr. Davidson was present in court, and the court 
advised him to procure an attorney ; whereupon he stated : 

" Your honor, we have no interest in it any more than we would like the law 
point decided, and we have made our answer the best we could, and we have 
no other, interest any more than to obey the orders of this court, whatever 
they may be." 

The court then heard argument on the demurrer in open court, and on the 
20th day of March. 1917, in open court, made and filed its order herein, sustain- 
ing the' demurrer of the plaintiff, and filed its written opinion, and you have 
been furnished with copies of said opinion. I endeavored to make that opinion 
as full and clear as I could. 

It appears that in the 6,490 votes which you have credited to James Wicker- 
sham, and in the 6,459 votes credited to Charles A. Sulzer, and in the 1,346 
votes credited to Lena Morrow Lewis, you counted votes from the precincts 
questioned in the petition and which the court has decided should be rejected, 
and in your answer you stated that you had completed the canvass. 

In view of the allegations of the answer and of what Mr. Davidson stated in 
open court, the court concluded that all other questions had been passed upon 
by you and that you had indeed completed your " canvass and compilation " and 
" that the official tally sheets made up by the board were duly totaled and 
checked." Now, you state in your communication to me that some private 
citizen has lately entered a protest of some kind and that there are some irregu- 
larities which have not entered into the case that has been heard before me, 
and on which I issued the alternative writ, and you ask my advice as to what 
you shall do. 

I would be very glad, indeed, to advise you if I were at liberty to do so, but 
occupying the position which I do occupy, i. e., being the .iudge before whom the 
cause is pending, it would be very improper for me to take any such action. 
When a matter is pending in court the judge of that court is in no position 
to act as the legal adviser of one of the litigants, neither can he instruct them 
except through orders, judgments, and decrees duly made. I think, however, 
that I may say this much without transgressing the rules of propriety : The 
court will, if you so desire, treat your communication as an amended and sup- 
plemental answer. If you desire it to be so treated you should serve a copy- 
thereof, on the attorneys for the plaintiff. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

(Signed) Robert W. .Jennings, 

Judge. 



Governor's Office, 
Juneau, Alaska, March 23, 1917. 
Hon. Robert W. .Jennings, 

Judge United States District Court, First Judicial Division, Juneau, 

Alaska. 

Dear Sir: The undersigned members of the Territorial canvassing board 

beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 22 with reference to a 

communication addressed to you, in which it was stated that the canvassing 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 117 

board had been served with a document by Mr. Emery Valentine, of Juneau, 
lu-otesting against the counting of certain specified election returns from 
A^arious voting precincts in the four judicial divisions in Alaska, on the 
ground that the " district court holds that no document which was not in- 
closed with and forwarded to the governor's office as part of the original 
returns can be counted or taken into consideration by the board." 

The reason for the submission of this protest to you was set out in our 
communication above referred to and forwarded to you on March 22 by the 
abo\^-mentioned members of the board. 

In reply, we wish to say that we merely asked to be instructed as to the 
proper method or procedure in disposing of the protest above referred to ; and 
your reply seems to indicate that no attention should be paid to protests 
entered by private citizens as to alleged irregularities in election returns, and, 
therefore, it would seem that the above members of the canvassing board held 
erroneous views on this matter. You also state that the court will, if we so 
desire, treat our communication of March 22 as an amended and supplemental 
answer. We wish to advise you, therefore, that we have no desire to have 
you treat the communication in that manner, nor have we any other answer 
to make at this time, having, as we believe, performed only what we, though 
apparently erroneously, believed was a simple duty. 

Finally, we wish to state, distinctly and unqualifiedly, that having performed 
what we believed to be our duty and in the interest of no candidate, we are 
without further interest in this matter. 
Respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) J. F. A. Steong, Governor, 

Chaeles E. Davidson, Surveyor General, 

Members of Canvassing Board. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Juneau. 
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

Know ye, that, in compliance with an act of Congress, approved May 7, 1906, 
providing for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from 
the Territory of Alaska and an act of Congress, approved August 24, 1912, pro- 
viding for a legislative assembly in the Territory of Alaska, and combining the 
election for Delegate with that for members of the legislative assembly, the 
undersigned, forming a canvassing board to canvass and compile in writing the 
vote in the election held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916, find 
that James Wickersham, of Fairbanks, Alaska, received the greatest number 
of votes for Delegate in said election, for the term beginning March 5, 1917, 
and the election of said James Wickersham is hereby duly certified. 

In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals 
at Juneau, the capital of Alaska, this 1st day of March, in the year of our Lord 
1917. 

. [seal.] 

Governor. 

. [seal.] 

Surveyor General. 
[seal.] 



Collector of Customs. 

Canvassing Board. 



peeemptoey weit of mandamus. 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau. 
The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. the Canvassing board, for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 
Pugh, defendants. No. 1593-A. 

To the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. 
Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh ; to you and each of you, 
greeting : 

In the name of the United States of America. 

Whereas on the 2d day of March, 1917, the plaintiff herein duly filed his pe- 
tition for a writ of mandamus, which said petition is in words and figures as 
follows : 



118 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

PETITION. 

In the District Court for tlie Territory of Alasl^a, Division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 

To the Hon. Robert W. Jennings, judge : 

The relator and petitioner herein petitions this honorable court for a writ 
of mandamus and a temporary rule, as hereinafter more specifically set forth, 
and in that behalf respectfully alleges and avers : 



That the relator and plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Delegate to 
Congress at the election held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of No- 
vember, 1916, and as such candidate was voted for by the people of Alaska at 
said election, he having been regularly nominated and placed upon the official 
ballot, pursuant to the provisions of law, entitling him to become a candidate, 
and entitling him to a place upon the official ballot. 

II. 

That at said election one James Wickersham was also a candidate for the said 
office of Delegate to Congress, and one Lena Morrow Lewis was also a candidate 
for the office of Delegate to Congress. There were no other candidates. 

III. 

That the above-named J. F. A. Strong is the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, duly appointed and acting as such ; that the above-named Charles A. 
Davidson is the duly appointed and acting surveyor general of the Territory 
of Alaska ; and the above-named John F. Pugh is the duly appointed and acting 
collector of customs for the Territory of Alaska. 

IV. 

That the above named comprise the canvassing board, empowered and di- 
rected by law to canvass the votes cast by the voters of the Territory of Alaska 
at the election held on the 7th of November, 1916, for the office of Delegate to 
Congress and other officers. 

V. 

That said board named as the respondent herein is now in session, and has 
been in session for some time past, engaged upon its duties of canvassing the 
returns of the various precincts within the Territory of Alaska. 

VI. 

That from the aforesaid returns from said election it appears that of the 
total votes cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress, this 
relator and plaintiff received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 
6,414 votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes. 

VII. 

That thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue a 
certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to this relator 
and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received the highest 
number of votes, as shown by said returns. 

VIII. 

That the said canvassing board has refused and is still refusing to issue 
said certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, but on the contrary has 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 119 

threatenerl and announced their intention to disregard Ihe legal election re- 
turns above referred to, in determining to whom said certificate shall issue 
and threaten and intend to count and canvass together with the returns afore- 
said certain false, spurious, and illegal votes, \\hich returns and votes if 
counted, together with the legal returns of votes, will change the result of the 
said election as hereinafter set forth. 

IX. 

That the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns threatened to he 
counted consist of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from the following pre- 
cincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit: 

Choggiung : 

For .James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafield : 

For .James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

X. 

That in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, and 
Bonafield the said vote was and is illegal, false, spurious, in this : That the 
votes cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing board were 
not cast in accordance with law in that the voters casting said ballots failed 
to use the form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska and failed 
to use the official ballots prepared for said election according to the laws of 
Alaska ; but, on the contrary, in casting said votes, used a form of ballot, 
either prepared by the voters themselves or by some person other than the 
person or persons authorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots. 

XI. 

That the laws of Alaska provide as follows : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns." 

XII. 

That in each and every one of the precincts above referred to where no 
official ballots were used no certificate explaining the facts which prevented the 
use of the official ballot accompanies the returns. 

XIII. 

That in none of the precincts above enumerated where the official ballot was 
not used as aforesaid were the election returns transmitted to the canvassing 
board accompanied by a certificate of the .judges of election or of any other 
person or persons whatsoever certifying to the facts, if any there were^ which 



120 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

prevented the use of the official ballots if the use of such ballots was in any 
manner prevented; but, on the contrary, the ballots cast, if any were cast, in 
each of the precincts above enumerated were returned to the election board 
without any certificate setting forth any facts which in any wise prevented 
the use of the official ballot. 

XIV. 

That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, 
and illegal, in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law and 
in that no certificate of the result of the election in said precinct specifying 
the number of votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was included in 
said returns as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. 

XV. 

That if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct afore- 
said are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, together with the 
legal votes cast at said election, the total vote counted for James Wickersham 
will be 6,490, and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer will be 6,459. 

XVI. 

That the said canvassing board do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by an order of this honorable court, so count and include said false, 
spurious, and illegal votes in compiling tha totals from said election retui'ns 
for the Territory of Alaska, and do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by this honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said 
James Wickersham, based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstand- 
ing that your relator and plaintiff herein received the highest number of votes 
cast at said election, and is entitled to said certificate of election. 

XVII. 

That plaintiff and relator has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law, and will be depi'ived of a certificate of election 
entitling him to the office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska 
unless this court issue this return of mandate, compelling the said canvassing 
board to reject and not count the returns from each and all of the foregoing 
precincts hereinbefore enumerated, and compelling the said canvassing board 
to issue to the relator and plaintiff herein its certificata certifying that he was 
duly and regularly elected to said office of Delegate to Congress ; and, further, 
that the said canvassing board threatens to, and will perform and do each and 
all of the acts above stated before a hearing can be heard upon this petition, 
and will so proceed unless a temporary rule is issued by this honorable court 
empowering and restraining said convassing board from so proceeding pending 
this litigation and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this court. 

W^herefore the relator and plaintiff herein prays that this honorable court 
issue its writ of mandamus directed to said canvassing board, and each of the 
members thereof, commanding said canvassing board and each of the members 
thereof to reject and not count the false, spurious, and illegal ballots herein- 
before referred to, and each and all of the same, and to reject the returns from 
said precincts where said ballots were cast, and to canvass and compile the 
votes cast iii said election from the returns, legal and regular, as hereinbefore 
stated, and issue a certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, or that 
they show cause before this honorable court on a day to be fixed by the court 
why they have not done so, and that they then and there return this writ with 
their certificates annexed of having done as they are commanded or the cause 
of their omission thereof. 

And, further, that a temporary rule be made and issued out of this court 
restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters and things herein 
complained of, or anv one or all of them, pending the final determination of 
this proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem 
just and equitable. . , , ,j. 

And plaintiff further prays for his costs and disbursements m his behalf 
incurred. 

(Signed) John R. Winn, 

Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEK. ^ 121 

Territory of Alaska, 

Division No. 1, ss: 
I, Charles A. Sulzer, being first duly sworn according to law, on oath deposes 
and says that he is the relator and plaintiff herein ; that he has read the fore- 
going complaint and petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary rule; 
that he knows the contents thereof ; and that the facts therein stated are true, 
as he verily believes. 

(Signed) Chas. A. Sulzek. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1917. 
[SEAX.] (Signed) Simon Hellenthal, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires November 30, 1917. 

I, Simon Hellenthal, do hereby certify that the above is a full, true, and cor- 
rect copy of the original petition and order. 

(Signed) Simon Hellenthal. 

And whereas on the filing of said petition an alternative v,'rit was, on said 
day, duly issued herein (which said alternative writ of mandamus and the 
petition on which it was based, were on the same day duly served upon you), 
commanding you to do the things asked in the petition or to show cause on 
the 3d day of" March, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m., at the courthouse at Juneau, why 
you had not done so ; and 

Whereas on the 5tli day of March, 1917, you. the said J. F. Pugh, did file 
your answer herein, in which you admitted the allegations of the petition 
and the writ of mandamus ; and you, J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, 
did file your answer wherein it was stated : 

" That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election 
held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that 
the official tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and 
checked, and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the 
several candidates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 
1,346 votes ; Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersham, 6,490 
votes " ; 
and wherein it was further stated : 

" That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and 
the totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board, said board voted 
to issue certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who 
had received the greatest number of votes in the said general election afore- 
said ; as shown by the ofiicial tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance 
of such action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alter- 
native writ of mandamus upon the members thereof, a certificate of election 
was prepared by said board for issuance to James Wickersham as Delegate 
to Congress from Alaska for the term beginning March 5. 1917 ; but that before 
said certificate had been signed and issued by the board, members thereof 
were served with the writ of mandamus herein, and no further action has 
been taken looking to the issuance of said certificate of election, pending the 
further order of the court herein " ; 

and wherein it was further stated that in the canvass of the returns from 
the voting precincts named in the alternative writ of mandamus herein and 
in the petition filed in this cause, the returns from the voting precincts of 
Choggiung, Deering, Utica, Nushagak, and Bonnifield showed that there had 
not been any official ballots cast at said election, and that no certificate ac- 
companied the returns from said precincts showing why nonofficial ballots 
were used at said election ; and wherein it was further stated that as to the 
said precinct of Vault, the election judges did not sign the certificate of result 
form in the back of the election register and tally book, but the canvassing 
board received from the clerk of the United States court for the fourth judicial 
division " the certificate of clerk to election returns " ; and 

Whereas to said answer a demurrer was duly filed and duly argued and 
taken under advisement by the court, and afterwards, to wit : On the 20th day 
of March, 1917, the court announced its decision to the effect that in computing 
the number of votes to which each candidate was entitled it was the plain duty 
of the board, under the law, to reject — that is, not to count — the alleged votes 



122 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 

from the said precincts aforesaid, which said votes aggregated Wicliersham 69 
and Sulzer 19 (except Nizina), and to deduct the said 69 votes returned for 
Wicliersliam from said precincts, and the said 19 votes returned for Sulzer 
from said precincts, respectively, from the number which the board had credited 
to each of the said two candidates, as aforesaid ; and 

Whereas the defendants in said cause were given two days in which to amend 
their return to the said alternative writ, if they should so desire ; and 

Whereas the said two days expired at 12 o'clock midnight on the 22d of 
March and no amended return has been filed therein, and no further cause 
shown why the alternative writ should not be made peremtory ; but on the 
contrary said defendants have filed herein their statement to the effect that 
they did not desire or intend to further appear herein ; and 

Whereas on this 23d day of March, 1917, plaintiff herein duly moved that the 
alternative writ herein be made peremptory for the reason that no sufficient 
cause has been shown to the contrary ; and 

Whereas the court is satisfied that the defendants do not desire or intend 
to show any further cause, and doth now find from the records and files herein 
that if the total number of votes to which the canvassing board has returned 
that James Wickersham is entitled to (to wit, 6,490) and that Charles A. 
Sulzer is entitled to (to wit, 6,459) should suffer a reduction of 69 and 19, re- 
spectively, it will clearly appear that Charles A. Sulzer has received the great- 
est number of votes for the office of Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that 
he is entitled to the certificate of election therefor ; and 

Whereas the court doth further find that with the exception of making the 
deduction aforesaid and of issuing said certificate said board has completed 
the canvass ; and 

Whereas the court, on motion of plaintiff this day made, has issued an order 
making said alternative writ peremptory : 

Therefore, this is to command you, and each of you, that upon receipt of this 
writ of mandamus you do forthwith convene as a canvassing board for the 
Territory of Alaska, and that you reject the votes from the said precincts of 
Choggiung, Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield, and Valut, and that you issue 
a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the greatest 
number of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that said certificate 
be in the usual form, as by law provided. 

And this you are in nowise to omit. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this 23d day of March, 1917. 

[seal.] (Signed) Robert W. Jennings, 

Judge. 



United States of Amekica, 

Territory of Alaska, Juneau. 
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

Know ye that in compliance with an act of Congress approved May 7, 1906, 
providing for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from 
the Territory of Alaska, and an act of Congress approved August 24, 1912, pro- 
viding for a legislative assembly in the Territory of Alaska, and combining 
the election for Delegate with that for members of the legislative assembly, 
the undersigned, forming a canvassing board to canvass and compile in writing 
the vote in the election held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916, 
find that Charles A. Sulzee, of Sulzer, Alaska, received the greatest number of 
votes for Delegate in said election, for the term beginning March 5, 1917, and 
the election of said Charles A. Sulzer is hereby duly certified. 

In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals 
at Juneau, the capital of Alaska, this 24th day of March, in the year of our 
Lord 1917. 

(Signed) J. F. A. Stone, [seal.] 

Governor, 

Charles E. Davidson, [seal,] 
Surveyor G ei leral, 

J. F. PUGH, [SEAL.] 

Collector of Customs, 

Canvassing Board. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 123 

Governor's Office, 
Juneau, Alaska, March 24, 1917. 
Hon. Charles A. Sulzer, Juneau, Alaska. 

Sir : Inclosed herewith we beg to transmit the certificate of election issued to 
you this date as Delegate to Congress from Alaska. 
Respectfully, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, 

Gove7-no7; 
Charles E. Davidson, 

Surveyor General, 

J. F. PUGH, 

Collector of Customs, 

Canvassing Board. 



Exhibit No. 3. 5/16/17. 

In the district court for the District of Alasl^a, division No. 1, at Juneau. 

United States of America, 

District of Alaska, Division No. 1 — ss: 

certificate. 

I, J. W. Bell, clerk of the dstrict court for the District of Alaka, division 
No. 1, hereby certify that the foregoing and hereto attached 43 pages of type- 
written matter, numbered from 1 to 43, both inclusive, constitute a full, true, 
and complete copy, and the whole thereof, of petition, writ of mandamus, stipu- 
lation filed March 7, 1917, separate answer of John F. Pugh, joint answer of 
Strong and Davidson, supplemental answer of Strong and Davidson, letter from 
Judge Jennings, writ of mandamus, letter from Strong and Davidson, in cause 
No. 1593-A, entitled : 

The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
defendants. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the above- 
entitled court this 24th day of March, 1917. 

[seal.] J. W. Bell, Clerk. 

petition. 

In the district court for the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board, for the Territory of Alaska, consist- 
ing of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 
No. 1593-A. 

To the Hon. Robert W. Jennings, Judge: 

The relator and petitioner herein petitions this honorable court for a writ of 
mandamus and a temporary rule, as hereinafter more specifically set forth, and 
in that behalf respectfully alleges and avers : 

I. 

That the relator and plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Delegate to 
Congress at the election held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7tl'i day of 
November, 1916, and as such candidate was voted for by the people of Alaska 
at said election, he having been regularly nominated and placed upon the of- 
ficial ballot, pursuant to the provisions of law, entitling him to become a candi- 
date, and entitling him to a place upon the official ballot. 

II. 

That at said election one James Wickersham was also a candidate for the 
said office of Delegate to Congress, and one Lena Morrow Lewis was also a 
candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress. There were no other can- 
didates. 



124 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE, 

III. 

That the above-named J. F. A. Strong is the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, duly appointed and acting as such ; that the above-named Charles A. 
Davidson is the duly appointed and acting surveyor general of the Territory 
of Alaska, and the above-named John F. Pugh is the duly appointed and acting 
collector of customs for the Territory of Alaska. 

IV. 

That the above named comprise the canvassing board, empowered and 
directed by law to canvass the votes cast by the voters of the Territory of 
Alaska at the election held on the 7th of November, 1916, for the office of 
Delegates to Congress and other officers. 

V. 

That the said board named as the respondent herein is now in session and has 
been in session for some time past, engaged upon its duties of canvassing the 
returns of the various precincts within the Territory of Alaska. 

VI. 

That from the aforesaid returns from said election it appears that of the 
total votes cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress this 
rein tor and plaintifE received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 
6,414 votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1,346 votes; 

VII. 

Th-^t thereunou it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue a 
certificate of election, in accordance with said vote and returns, to this relator 
and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received the highest 
number of votes, as shown by said return. 

VIII. 

That the said canvassing board has*refused and is still refusing to issue said 
certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, but, on the contrary, has 
threatened and announced their intention to disregard the legal election re- 
turns above referred to in determining to whom said certificate shall issue 
and threaten and intend to count and canvass, together with the returns afore- 
said, certain false, spui'ious, and illegal votes, which returns and votes, if 
counted together with the legal returns of votes, will change the result of the 
said election as hereinafter set forth. 

IX. 

That the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns threatened to be 

counted consist of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from the following 

precincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit : 

Choggiung : Votes. 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham : 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer , — , 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For .Tames Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer . — — 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. % 125 

Bonafield : Vote. 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer . i 

Vault : 

For James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

X. 

That in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering. Nizina, Utica, Niishagak, and 
Bonnifiekl, the said vote was, and is, illegal, false, spurious in this : that the 
votes cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing board were not 
cast in accordance with law, in that the voters casting said ballots failed to use 
the form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska, and failed to use 
the official ballots prepared for said election according to the laws of Alaska, 
but on the contrary, in casting said votes, used a form of ballot, either prepared 
by the voters themselves, or by some person other than the person or persons 
authorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots. 

XI. 

That the laws of Alaska provide as follows : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall, in this event, certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accom- 
pany and be ma.de a part of the election returns." 

XII. 

That in each and every one of the precincts above referred to, where no 
official ballots were used, no certificate explaining the facts which prevented 
the use of the official ballot accompanies the returns. 

XIII. 

That in none of the precincts above enumerated where the official ballot was 
not used as aforesaid were the election returns transmitted to the canvassing 
board accompanied by a certificate of the judges of election, or of any other 
person or persons whatsoever, certifying to the facts, if any there were, which 
prevented the use of the official ballots, if the use of such ballots was in any 
manner prevented, but on the contrary, the ballots cast, if any were cast, in 
each of the precincts above enumerated, were returned to the election board 
without any certificate setting forth any facts which in anywise prevented the 
use of the official ballot. 

XIV. 

That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vault are false, spurious, 
and illegal, in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law, and in 
that no certificate of the result of the election in said precinct, specifying the 
number of votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was included in said 
returns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. 

XV. 

That if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct afore- 
said are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, together with the 
legal votes cast at said election, the total vote counted for James Wickersham 
will be 6,490, and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer will be 6,459. 

XVI. 

That the said canvassing board do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by an order of this honorable court, so count and include said false, 
spurious, and illegal votes in compiling the totals from said election returns for 



126 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEfi. 

the Territory of Alaska ; and do now threaten and intend, and will, unless 
restrained by this honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said 
James Wickersham, based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstanding 
that your relator and plaintiif herein received the highest number of votes cast 
at said election, and is entitled to said certificate of election. 

XVII. 

That plaintiff and relator has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law, and will be deprived of a certificate of election 
entitling him to the office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska 
unless this court issue this return of mandate, compelling the said canvassing 
board to reject and not count the returns from each and all of the foregoing 
precincts hereinbefore enumerated, and compelling the said canvassing board 
to issue to the relator and plaintiff herein its certificate, certifying that he was 
duly and regularly elected to said office of Delegate to Congress ; and, further, 
that the said canvassing board threatens to and will perform and do each and 
all of the acts above stated before a hearing can be heard upon this petition, 
and will so proceed unless a temporary rule is issued by this honorable court 
empowering and restraining said canvassing board from so proceeding, pending 
this litigation, and until the matter can be heard upon its merits by this court. 

Wherefore, the relator and plaintiff herein prays that this honorable court 
issue its writ of mandamus, directed to said canvassing board and each of the 
members thereof, commanding said canvassing board and each of the members 
thereof to reject and not count the false, spurious, and illegal ballots hereinbe- 
fore referred to, and each and all of the same, and to reject the returns from 
said precincts where said ballots were cast ; and to canvass and compile the 
votes cast in said election from the returns, legal and regular, as hereinbefore 
stated, and issue a certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff, or that 
they show cause before this honorable court, on a day to be fixed by the court, 
why they have not done so ; and that they then and there return this writ, with 
their certificates annexed, of haviog done as they are commanded, or the cause 
of their omission thereof. 

And, further, that a temporary rule be made and issued out of this court 
restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters and things herein 
complained of, or any one or all of them, pending the final determination of this 
proceeding, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just 
and equitable. 

And plaintiff further prays for his costs and disbursements in his behalf 
incurred. 

John R. Winn, 
Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 
Tekritoky of Alaska, 

Division No. 1, ss: 

I, Charles A. Sulzer, being first duly sworn, according to law, on oath 
deposes and says that he is the relator and plaintiff herein ; that he has read 
the foregoing complaint and petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary 
rule ; that he knows the contents thereof ; and that the facts therein stated are 
true as he verily believes. 

Chas. a. Sulzer. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1917. 
[notarial seal.] Simon Hellenthal, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires November 30, 1917. 

Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, first division, March 2, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By ■ , Deputy. 



WICKER9HAM VS. SULZER. 127 

ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

In the District Court of the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintifE, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong, Charles F. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 
No. 1593-A. 
To the canvassing board of the Territory of Alaska, constituted for the purpose 
of canvassing the vote cast at the election held on November 7, 1916, and to 
J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, the persons consti- 
tuting such board, greeting: 

I, Robert W. Jennings, judge of the above-entitled court, in the name of the 
United States of America, do hereby command you, and each of you. that in 
canvassing the vote cast for Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska at 
the election held on November 7, 1916, you reject and do not count the returns 
and the votes received and transmitted to you from the following precincts, 
to wit : 

Choggiung : Votes. 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Deering : 

For James Wickersham : 10 

For Charles A Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For .James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Utica : 

For .Tames Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonafield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

' For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For .James Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

and that you issue a certificate of election of Charles A. Sulzer, the relator 
herein, certifying that he has been duly elected as a Delegate to Congress for 
the Territory of Alaska, at the election held on November 7, 1916, and that you, 
and each of you, return this writ with your certificate, and the certificates of 
each of you annexed, of having done as you are herein commanded, or the 
cause of your omission thereof, on the 3d day of March, 1917, at the hour of 
2 p. m. of said day, at the courthouse in the city of Juneau. Alaska, and at the 
court room thereof, and you are hereby restrained from counting the votes or 
receiving the returns from any one or more of the precincts above named until 
the further order of this court. 

Done in open court this 2d day of March, 1917. 

Robert W. Jennings, Judge. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within alternative writ of mandamus on 
the 2d day of March, 1917, at Juneau, Alaska, and that I served the same on 
the same day at Juneau, Alaska, by handing to and leaving with each of the 
within-named defendants, J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and .John F. 
Pugh, a certified copy of the original writ herein, said services made personally. 

Dated at Juneau, Alaska, March 2, 1917. 

H. A. Bishop, United States MarsJial. 
By ,T. L. Manning. Office Deputy. 

Filed in the District Court, District of Alaska, first division, March 3, 1917. 

J. W. Bell. Clerk. 
By L. E. Spray, Deputy. 



128 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

STIPULATION. 

In the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, Division Number One, at 
Juneau. The Territory of Alaslia, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and 
Charles A. Sulzer, Relator and Plaintife, v. The Canvassing Board for the 
Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and 
John F. Pugh, Defendants. No. 1593-A. 

It is hereby stipulated by and betvi^een the parties hereto that the alternative 
writ of mandamus issued herein shall be considered as though all the facts 
stated in the petition were repeated therein, and the petition shall be con- 
sidered as though the facts stated in the alternative writ were therein stated, 
and the return or answer made by the canvassing board, and signed by J. F. A. 
Strong and Charles E. Dividson shall be considered and regarded as an answer 
not only to the alternative writ, but also an answer to the petition, and the 
separate answer signed and filed by John F. Pugh shall likewise be considered 
as an answer to both the alternative writ and the petition herein. 

Hellenthal &. Hellenthal, 
John R. Winn, 
Attorneys for Relator and Plaintiff- 
J. F. A. Steong, 
Charles E. Davidson, 
John F. Pugh, 
Respondents, comprising the Canvassing Board, 

and acting in this behalf for said hoard. 
Filed in the District Court, District of Alaska, first division, March 7, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By , Deputy. 

ANSWER OF JOHN F. PUGH. 

In the District Court of the Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, 
Relator and Plaintiff, v. The Canvaassing Board for the Teerritory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles F. Davidson, and John F. 
Pugh, Defendants. 

Comes now the aforesaid John F. Pugh, in his own proper person, appearing 
for himself alone and answers the alternative writ of mandamus and the 
injunction order issued in above-entitled cause and the petition filed therein, 
and alleges as follows : 

I. 

He admits all the allegations of the said petition and writ. 

II. 

He further allegs that he believes the votes of the precincts mentioned in 
said petition should not be counted by the canvassing board for the reasons set 
forth in said petition and that a certificate of election should be issued to said 
Charles A. Sulzer for said reasons, and he expresses his willingness, as a 
member of said canvassing board, to reject said ballots and issue said certifi- 
cate ; but, being only one of said canvassing board of three, he is powerless in 
the premises. 

Wherefore, having fully answered, he prays to be hence dismissed with his 

costs. ^ ^ „ 

John F. Pugh, 

Collector of Customs, Member of Canvassing Board. 

Teeeitoey of Alaska, City of Juneau, ss. 

I John F. Pugh, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say I am one of 
the' defendants named in the above-entitled cause ; I have read the foregoing 
answer, know the contents thereof, and the same is true. 

John F. Pugh, 
Collector of Customs, Mem^ber of Canvassing Board. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of March, A. D. 1917. 
[SEAi,.] I^- H- Stevens, Notary Public. 

IVlv commission expires December 30, 1919. 

Filed in the District Court, District of Alaska, first division, March 6, 191 <. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By John T. Reed, Deputy. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 129 

ANSWER TO ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

In the District Court of the Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1. The Territory 
of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator 
and plaintiff, v. the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting 
of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants. 

Come now J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, members of the can- 
vassing board for the Territory of Alaska, and defendants in the above-entitled 
action, and for their answer to the alternative writ of mandamus issued and 
served upon them herein state as follows : 

1. That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election 
held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that the 
official tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, 
and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several can- 
didates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ; 
Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersham, 6,490 votes. 

2. That upon completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and 
the totaling and checking of the tally sheets of the board, said board voted to 
issue certificates of election to the candidates for the various offices who had 
received the greatest number of votes in the said general election aforesaid, 
as shown by the official tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance of 
such action by the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alternative 
writ of mandamus upon the members thereof, a certificate of election was pre- 
pared by said board for issuance to James Wickersham as Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska for the term beginning March 5, 1917 ; but that before said cer- 
tificate had been signed and issued by the board, the members thereof were 
served with the writ of mandamus herein, and no further action has been taken 
looking to the issuance of said certificate of election pending the further order 
of the court herein. 

3. That in the canvass of the returns from the voting precincts named in 
the alternative writ of mandamus herein, and in the petition filed in this cause, 
the following irregularities were found in the returns from the respective 
precincts : 

Choggking. — The returns from this voting precinct showed that nonofficial 
ballots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the returns showing why 
such ballots had been used. 

Beering. — The returns from this voting precinct showed that nonofficial bal- 
lots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the returns showing why such, 
ballots had been used. In this connection, for the information of the court, and 
as part of this answer, there is attached hereto, marked " Exhibit A," the 
original telegram received by the canvassing board from the clerk of the United 
States District Court for the Second Judicial Division, in which the said clerk 
states that he has received an affidavit of one of the judges of the Deering 
voting precinct, and a certificate from another of said judges, showing why 
official ballots were not used in said voting precinct ; and that said clerk has 
mailed a copy of said affidavit and certificate to the canvassing board, but the 
same have not yet been received by the board. 

Utica. — In the case of the Utica voting precinct the returns showed that non- 
official ballots had been used, but no certificate accompanied the returns showing 
why such ballots were used. In this connection reference is here made to the 
telegram from the clerk of the District Court for the Second Judicial Division, 
hereto attached as a part of this answer and marked " Exhibit A," in which 
said clerk states that the judges of election for Utica precinct had, on January 
18, 1917, issued a certificate showing why official ballots were not used in said 
precinct ; that said clerk had received said certificate ; and that he had mailed 
a copy to the canvassing board, but the same had not yet been received by 
the board. 

Nizina. — In the case of the Nizina voting precinct the only irregularity shown 
on the face of the returns, so far as the canvassing board could determine, 
was that one of the three election judges had sworn the other two, but there 
was nothing to show that he had himself been sworn, although he had signed 
the oath form with the other two judges. 
13289—17 9 



130 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Niishagak. — In the case of the Nugashak voting precinct the ballots used 
were Democratic " party worker's " ballots, but no certificate accompanied the 
returns showing why such ballots were used. 

Bonnifield. — In the case of the Bonnifield voting precinct ballots marked 
" Sample ballots " were used, but no certificate accompanied the returns showing 
why such ballots were used. 

Vault. — In the case of Vault voting precinct the election judges did not sign 
the certificate of result form in the back of the election register and tally 
book, but the canvassing board received from the clerk of the United States 
District Court for the Fourth Judicial Division, in which said precinct is 
located, the " Certificate of the clerk to election returns," bearing the names of 
the election judges for said voting precinct, and duly certified by the clerk of 
the court as a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in his oflice. 

4. That as to the reasons why the canvassing board counted the returns from 
the voting precincts named in the petition and in the writ of mandamus issued 
herein these defendants state as follows : 

That, acting in the capacity of a canvassing board, they believed, and still 
believe, that they were acting in the capacity of a ministerial body only, and 
not as a judicial body, and, therefore, that it was not the duty of said board 
to construe the provisions of the election laws, either Federal or Territorial, 
or to decide legal questions involved with respect to certain technical irregu- 
larities in the returns from any of the voting precincts, including the returns 
from the voting precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, 
Bonnifield, and Vault, except to determine, in so far as they could, the real 
intention of the voters, there being no frai;d shown on the face of. the returns,, 
and no allegations of fraud therein having been made to the canvassing board ; 
and the board further believed, and still believes, that the provision of the 
law A^'hich directs election boards to show why official ballots were not used is 
directory only. 

5. These defendants further respectfully state that they have made no 
further answer to the allegations contained in the petition filed herein, for 
the reason that the canvassing board has no funds with which to employ 
legal counsel, and the members thereof do not conceive it to be their duty to 
employ such counsel and pay for his services from their private means. 

Wherefore, having answered the writ herein, these defendants respectfully 
ask that they be discharged therefrom and that the proceedings herein be 
dismissed. 

J. F. A. Strong, 
Chakles E. Davidson, 

Canvassing Board. 

EXHIBIT A. 
SIGNAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

[Telegram.] 

Keceived at 35 sikg 43 OB. 

Governor's Office. 

Received 

Feb. 12, 1917. 

Answer . 

Nome, Alaska, February 12, 1917. 
Strong, Governor, Chairman Canvassing Board, Juneau. 

Certificate Utica judges, issued January 18th, showing why official ballots not 
used received to-day. Affidavit of one certificate of second judge of election, 
Deering precinct, dated February 2d, of same tenor also received. Copies 
mailed. 

Adams, Clerk. 

3.45 p. m. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss. 

I, J. F A. Strong, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I 
am one of the defendants named in the above-entitled action, and a member of 
the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, being the chairman of said 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 



131 



board ; that I have read the foregoing answer, know the contents thereof, and 
the same is true, to the best of my Ivnowledge and belief. 

J. F. A. Steong. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of March, 1917. 
(notarial seal.) " Chas. E. Naghel, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires November 1, 1920. 

Filed in the District Court, District of Alaska, first division, March 5, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By John T. Reed, Deputy. 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. 

The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 

Sulzer. relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board, for the Territory of 

Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 

Pugh, defendants. No. 1593-A. 

The above-named defendants, J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, re- 
spectfully, submit to this honorable court. That in addition to the facts set 
forth in their original answer to the alternative writ, that a protest against 
the counting of the votes of certain precincts in the different judicial divisions 
of Alaska, was filed with the canvassing board on March 21, a copy of which 
is attached hereto, which sets forth in detail the precincts and the alleged 
ij-regularities charged in the protest and it appears from the records of the 
canvassing board that irregularities of different kinds did actually exist in 
many of the voting precincts of the Territory, and the board being without 
legal counsel therefore begs to submit the protest herein referred to and re- 
spectfully ask to be instructed as to what disposition the said board should 
make of said protest. 

J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor. 
Charles E. Davidson, 

Surveyor General. 

To the governor, surveyor general, and collector of customs, constituting the 

canvassing hoard for the Territory of Alaska: 

Sirs : The district court of this division having construed the election law to 
require the board to disregard election returns which fail to contain the vari- 
ous documents provided for by law, I protest against the counting of the fol- 
lowing returns, for the reasons below more specifically set out, to wit : 



Precinct. 


Defects in return. 


FIRST DIVISION. 

Beaver Falls 


No register of voters. 

No register of voters. Judges of election not sworn. 

No register of voters. 


Craig 


Chichagofl 


Chilkat 


Conflict between certificate of result and ballots cast. No register of 


Douglas No. 1 


voters. 
No register of voters. 
N register of voters . Judges not sworn . 
No register of voters. 
Do. 


Dolomi 


Tenai-ee 


Gold Creek 


Hoonah 


No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No register of voters. 

No certificate of result of election. No election register. 


Hadley 


Juneau No. 1 


Jualpa 


Judges not sworn. 


Loring 


No certificate of result forwarded with return or constituting a part 


Perseverance 


thereof whatever. Certificate was filed separately and subsequently 
to the canvassing of the returns by the board. Election returns not 
sworn to. Judges not sworn. 
No register of voters. 


Sheep ( reek 


No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Sitka 


No register of voters. 


Sulzer 


Judges not sworn. 


Treadwell - - 


No election register. 


SECOND 

Council . 


DIVISION. 


No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 


St. Michael No 


1 


Do. 



132 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZER. 



Precinct. 


Defects in return. 


THIRD DIVISION. 

Anchorage No. 1 


Judges of election not sworn. No registration of voters. No register of 

voters. 
No registration of voters. 


Chignik 


Chitina 


Do. 


Girdwood 


No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No register of voters and no registration. 

No registration of voters. Certificate signed by only two judges. 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No official ballots used. Voters did not either write or print their own 
ballots but the ballots were printed for them by the Democratic can- 
didate for Delegate. No certificate showing the facts which prevented 
the use of official ballots. 


Katalla 


I aTou"he 


Moose reek 


Naknek 


Ninil-hick 


Ou ini-ie 


Judges not sworn. No registration of voters. 


Roosevelt 


Valdet 


No registration of voters. 
Do. 


Wassila 


FOURTH DIVISION. 

Broo^-'s 


No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 
No registration of voters. 


Circle 


Fort Yu^-on 


Do. 


Fort Oibbon 


No registration of voters. No notice or order of election. 


Gilmore 


No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 


Hot Springs 


No registration of voters nor any register of voters. Judges not sworn. 
Judges not sworn. 


I ittleVldorado 


T ong 


No registration of voters. No register of voters. 
No register of voters. 


Moose reek 


Nenana 




Nulato 


No register of voters. 


Ophir 


No registration of voters. 


Tokotna 


No registration of voters. No register of voters. Jugdes not sworn. 


West Fork 


No certificate of result included with return. No certificate why non- 
offlcial ballots were used filed with return as a part thereof. No return 
on file at the time canvassing board convened. 
No registration of voters. No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 







It will be observed that the district court holds that no document which 
was not Inclosed with and forwarded to the governor's office as a part of the 
original return can be counted or taken into consideration by the board. In 
many cases efforts were made by the board and the attorney general to secure 
amended returns, and in many of those cases supplemental and amendatory 
documents were filed. All of these should, under the decision of the court, be 
disregarded. It will be observed that the reasons which influenced the court 
to hold that the returns from Vault should be disregarded by the board also 
are applicable to Precinct No. 1, of Juneau, and other precincts. 

I make this protest as a friend of Hon. James Wickersham and in interest 
of public justice, in my capacity as a citizen of the United States and of the 
Territory of Alaska. 

Very respectfully, 

Emery Valentine. 

Dated at Juneau, Alaska, this 21st day of March, A. D. 1917. 
Filed in the district court, district of Alaska, first division, March 22, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By , Deputy. 

United States District Court, 
First Division, District of Alaska, 

Judge's Chambers, 
Juneau, March 22, 1911. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, Governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor 
General of the Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. 

Gentlemen: At your request, as I am informed, the clerk of this court has 
brought to my attention a certain communication signed by you in which you 
slate that a protest has been filed with the canvassing board by Mr. Emery 
Valentine, of this city, suggesting the rejection of the votes of certain pre- 
cincts cast at the last election for Delegate to Congress, and in whi(;b you 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 133 

state that the " board begs to submit the protest herein referred to and respect- 
fully asks to be instructed as to wliat disposition the said board should make 
of said protest," and in reply I have to state : 

Tour communication is entitled in the cause " The Territory of Alaska on 
the Relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, Relator and Plain- 
tiff, V. the Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. 
Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, Defendants, No. 1593." 

The above-entitled cause is a proceeding brought in this court for the issu- 
ance of a mandamus compelling you to reject — ^i. e., not count the return from 
certain precincts stated in the petition on account of certain alleged fatal 
defects — not irregularities, but defects — in the return from said precincts. 
An alternative Avrit of mandamus was issued and served upon you, and you 
were also enjoined from issuing the certificate of election to James Wicker- 
sham. To that alternative writ and the petition on which it was founded you 
have made answer, stating : 

" That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March. 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election 
held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that 
the ofRcial tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, 
and that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several can- 
didates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : Lena Morrow Lewis, 1.346 
votes ; Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes ; and James Wickersham, 6,490 votes." 
(Par. 1.) 

And further : 

" That in pursuance of such action by the canvassing board, and prior tc- 
the service of the alternative writ of mandamus upon the members thereof, 
a certificate of election was prepared by said board for issuance to James 
Wickersham as Delegate to Congress from Alaska for the term beginning 
March 5, 1917 ; but that before said certificate had been signed and issued 
by the board the members thereof were served with the writ of mandamus 
herein." (Par. 2.) 

Your answer further avers that the allegations of fact made in the petition 
as to the reasons why the precincts of Chogiung, Deering, Utica, Nushagak, 
Bonnifield, and Vault should not be counted were true, but that you considered 
that nevertheless said precincts should be counted and that you counted them. 

The plaintifE demurred to your answer, and that brought up the question 
as to whether or not on your answer the certificate should be Issued to Wicker- 
sham or Sulzer. 

It further appeared from your answer that you had no attorney. At the 
hearing on this demurrer Mr. Davidson was present In court and the court 
advised him to procure an attorney, v/hereupon he stated : " Your honor, we 
have no interest in its any more than we would like the law point decided, 
and we have made our answer the best we could ; and we have no other interest 
any more than to obey the orders of this court, whatever they may be." 

The court then heard argument on the demurrer in open court, and on the 
20th day of March, 1917, in open court made and filed its order herein, sus- 
taining the demurrer of the plaintiff, and filed its written opinion, and you 
have been furnished with copies of said opinion. I endeavored to make that 
opinion as full and clear as I could. 

It appears that in the 6.490 votes you have credited to James Wickersham, 
and in the 6,459 votes credited to Charles A. Sulzer, and in the 1,346 votes 
credited to Lena Morrow Lewis, you counted votes from the precincts ques- 
tioned in the petition and which the court has decided should be rejected, 
and in your answer you stated that you had completed the canvass. 

In view of the allegations of the answer and of what Mr. Davidson stated 
in open court, the court concluded that all other questions had been passed 
upon by you and that you had indeed completed your " canvass and compila- 
tion," and " that the official tally sheets made up by the board were duly 
totaled and checked." Now you state in your communication to me that some 
private citizens has lately entei'ed a protest of some kind, and that there ai"e 
some irregularities which have not entered into the case that has been heard 
before me and on which I Issued the alternative writ, and you ask my advice 
as to what you shall do. 

I would be very glad indeed to advise you if I were at liberty to do so, 
hut occupying the position which I do occupy, i. e., being the judge before whom 



134 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

the cause is pending, it would be very improper for me to take any such 
action. When a matter is pending in court the judge of that court is in no 
position to act as the legal adviser of one of the litigants, neither can he in- 
struct them except through orders, judgments, and decrees duly made. I 
think, however, that I may say this much without transgressing the rules of 
propriety : The court will, if you so desire, treat your communication as an 
amended and supplemental answer. If you desire it to be so treated you should 
serve a copy thereof on the attorneys for the plaintiff. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

RoBEKT W. Jennings, Judge. 
Copies to Governor Strong, Mr. Davidson. 

Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, First Division, March 22, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerk. 
By John T. Reed, Deputy. 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau. , 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1, ss: 

I, James F. Hurley, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say : 

That I am a citizen of the United States of America, over the age of 21 years. 

That on the 22d day of March, 1917, at about 3.30 o'clock p. m. thereof, I 
served the foregoing and attached letter, dated March 22, 1917, from Robert W. 
Jennings to Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, 
surveyor general, of the Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, upon tJie therein- 
named J. F. A. Strong by handing to and leaving with George W. Folta, a 
clerk in the office of the said J. F. A. Strong, in Juneau, Alaska, a copy of the 
aforesaid letter, duly certified by J. W. Bell, clerk of the above-mentioned 
court, to be a true and correct copy of said letter and of the whole thereof. 

.That on the 22d day of March, 1917, at about 4 o'clock p. m. thereof, I served 
the foregoing and attached letter, dated March 22, 1917, from Robert W. 
Jennings to Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, 
surveyor general, of the Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, upon the therein- 
named Charles E. Davidson by handing to and leaving with Arthur W. Fox, a 
clerk in the office of said Charles E. Davidson, in Juneau, Alaska, a copy of the 
aforesaid letter, duly certified to be a true and correct copy of said letter and 
of the whole thereof, by J. W. Bell, clerk of the above-mentioned court. 

That I am not in anywise interested in the cause in the above-mentioned 
court referred to in said letter, said cause being entitled " The Territory of 
Alaska on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and 
plaintiff, -v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of 
J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants, No. 
1593-A," and that I am competent to be a witness therein. 

James F. Hurley. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of March, 1917. 
[notarial seal.] John T. Reed, 

Notary Public in and for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Juneau, Alaska. 

My commission expires March 6, 1918. 

peremptory writ of mandamus. 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau. 
The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. 
Pugh, defendants. No. 1593-A. 

To the canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. 

Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh. 

To you and eacli of you greeting: In the name of the United States of 
America. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. ^ 185' 

Whereas on the 22d day of March, 1917, the plaintiff herin duly filed his 
petition for a writ of mandamus, which said petition is in words and figures 
as follows : 

PETITION. 

In the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, division No. 1. The Terri- 
tory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, 
relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, 
consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, de- 
fendants. No. 1593-A. 

To the Hon. Robert W. Jennings, Judge: 

The relator and petitioner herein petitions this honorable court for a writ of 
mandamus and a temporary rule as hereinafter more specifically set forth and 
in that behalf respectfully alleges and avers : 



That the relator and plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Delegate to 
Congress at the election held in the Territory of Alaska, on the 7th day of No- 
vember, 1916, and as such candidate was voted for by the people of Alaska at 
said election, he having been regularly nominated and placed upon the official 
ballot pursuant to the provisions of law, entitling him to become a candidate 
and entitling him to a place ut)on the official ballot. 

II- 

That at said election one .James Wickersham was also a candidate for the 
said office of Delegate to Congress and one Lena Morrow Lewis was also a 
candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress. There were no other candi- 
dates. 

III. 

That the above named J. F. A. Strong is the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska, duly appointed and acting as such; that the above named Charles A. 
Davidson is the duly appointed and acting surveyor general of the Territory 
of Alaska, and the above named John F. Pugh is the duly appointed and acting 
collector of customs for the Territory of Alaska. 

IV. 

That the above named comprise the canvassing board, empowered and directed 
by laM' to canvass the votes cast by the voters of the Territory of Alaska at 
the election held on the 7th of November, 1916, for the office of Delegate to 
Congress and other officers. 

V. 

That the said board named as the respondent herein is now in session and 
has been in session for some time past, engaged upon its duties of canvassing 
the returns of the various precincts within the Territory of Alaska. 

VI. 

That from the aforesaid returns from said election it appears that of the total 
votes cast in said Territory for the office of Delegate to Congress this relator 
and plaintiff received 6,438 votes, the said James Wickersham received 6,414 
votes, and the said Lena Morrow Lewis received 1.346 votes. 

VII. 

That thereupon it became the duty of the said canvassing board to issue a 
certificate of election in accordance with said vote and returns to this relator 
and plaintiff, Charles A. Sulzer, he being the person having received the highest 
number of votes, as shown by said return. 



136 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

VIII. 

That the said canvassing board lias refused and is still refusing to issue said 
certificate of election to this relator and plaintiff; but, on the contrary, has 
threatened and announced their intention to disregard the legal election returns 
above referred to in determining to whom said certificate shall issue and 
threaten and intend to count and canvass, together v^^ith the returns aforesaid, 
certain false, spurious, and illegal votes, which returns and votes, if counted, 
together with the legal returns of votes, will change the result of the said elec- 
tion as hereinafter set forth. 

IX. 

That the false, spurious, and illegal votes and returns threatened to be 
counted consists of the false, spurious, and illegal votes from the following 
precincts of the Territory of Alaska, to wit : 

Ohoggiung: . Votes. 

For James Wickersham 25 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Peering : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 6 

Nizina : 

For James Wickersham * 7 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

Nushagak : 

For James Wickersham 10 

For Charles A. Sulzer 3 

Utica : 

For James Wickersham 13 

For Charles A. Sulzer 4 

Bonnifield : 

For James Wickersham 3 

For Charles A. Sulzer 1 

Vault : 

For .Tames Wickersham 8 

For Charles A. Sulzer 2 

X. 

That in the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Utica, Nushagak, and 
BorfQifield the said vote was and is illegal, false, spurious; in this : That the votes 
cast and threatened to be counted by the said canvassing board were not cast 
in accordance with law. in that the voters casting said ballots failed to use the 
form of official ballot prescribed by the laws of Alaska and failed to use the 
official ballots prepared for said election according to the laws of Alaska ; but, 
on the contrary, in casting said votes, used a form of ballot either prepared by 
the voters themselves or by some person other than the person or persons au- 
thorized by law to prepare and provide said ballots. 

XI. 

That the laws of Alaska provide as follows: " That in any precinct where the 
election has been legally called, and no official ballots have been received, the 
voters are permitted to write or print their ballots, but the judges of election 
shall in this event certify to the facts which prevented the use of the official 
ballots, wliich certificate must accompany and be made a part of the election 
returns." 

XII. 

That in each and every one of the precincts above referred to, where no 
official ballots were used, no certificate explaining the facts which prevented 
the use of the official ballot accompanies the returns. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. ^ 137 

XIII. 

That in none of the precincts above enumerated where the official ballot was 
not used as aforesaid were the election returns transmitted to the canvassing 
board accompanied by a certificate of the judges of election, or of any other 
person or persons whatsoever^ certifying to the facts, if any there were, which 
prevented the use of the official ballots, if the use of such ballots was in any 
manner prevented, but on the contrary the ballots cast, if any were cast, in 
each of the precincts above enumerated were returned to the election board 
without any certificate setting forth any facts which in any wise prevented the 
use of the official ballot. 

XIV. 

That the returns from the aforesaid precinct of Vaiilt are false, spurious, and 
illegal, in that said returns are not certified to as provided by law and in that 
no certificate of the result of the electign in said precinct specifying the num- 
ber of votes cast for each candidate accompanied or was included in said re- 
turns, as required by section 402 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. 

XV. 

That if the aforesaid false, spurious, and illegal votes for the precinct afore- 
said are counted and canvassed by the said canvassing board, together with 
the legal votes cast at said election, the total vote counted for James Wicker- 
sham will be 6,490, and the total vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer will be 6,459. 

XVI. 

That the said canvassing board do now threaten and intend and will, unless 
restrained by an order of this honorable court, so covmt and include said false, 
spurious, and illegal votes in compiling the totals from said election returns 
for the Territory of Alaska, and do now threaten and intend and will, unless 
restrained by this honorable court, issue a certificate of election to the said 
.James Wickersham, based upon said false compilation of votes, notwithstanding 
that your relator and plaintiff herein received the highest number of votes 
cast at said election and is entitled to said certificate of election. 

XVII. 

That plaintiff: and relator has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law and will be deprived of a certificate of election en- 
titling him to the office of Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Alaska 
unless this court issue this return of mandate compelling the said canvassing 
board to reject and not count the returns from each and all of the foregoing 
precincts hereinbefore enumerated, and compelling the said canvassing board to 
issue to the relator and plaintiff herein its certificate certifying that he M'as duly 
and regularly elected to said office of Delegate to Congress. 

And, further, that the said canvassing board threatens to and will perform 
and do each and all of the acts above stated before a hearing can be heard upon 
this petition and will so proceed unless a temporary rule is issued by this hon- 
orable court empowering and restraining said canvassing board from so pro- 
ceeding pending this litigation and until the matter can be heard upon its merits 
by this court. 

Wherefore the relator and plaintift herein prays that this honorable court 
issue its writ of mandamus directed to said canvassing board and each of the 
members thereof commanding said canvassing board and each of the members 
thereof to reject and not count the false, spurious, and illegal ballots hereinbe- 
fore referred to, and each and all of the same, and to reject the returns from 
said precincts where said ballots were cast, and to canvass and compile the votes 
cast in said election from the returns, legal and regular, a's hereinbefore stated, 
and issue a certificate of election to this relator and plaintifli. or that they show 
cause before this honorable court, on a day to be fixed by the court, why they 
have not done so ; and that they then and there return this writ with their 
certificates annexed of having done as they are commanded, or the cause of 
their omission thereof. 

And, further, that a temporary rule be made and issued out of this court 
restraining the said board from proceeding to do the matters and things herein 



138 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

complained of, or any one or all of them, pending the final determination of this 
proceeding and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just 
and equitable. 

And plaintiff further prays for his costs and disbursements in his behalf 
incurred. 

John R. Winn, 
Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff. 
Tekeitory of Alaska, 

Diinsion No. 1, ss: 
I, Charles A. Sulzer. being first duly sworn according to law, on oath deposes 
and says: That he is the relator and plaintiff herein; that he has read the fore- 
going complaint and petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary rule ; 
that he knows the contents thereof ; and that the facts therein stated are true 
as he verily believes. 

ChAELES A. SULZEE. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1917. • 

[notaeial seal.] Simon Hellenthal, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires November 30, 1917. 

Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, first division, March 2, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Clerh. 
By , Deputy. 

And whereas, on the filing of said petition an alternative writ was, on said 
day, duly issued herein (which said alternative writ of mandamus and the 
petition on which it was based were on the same day duly served upon you), 
commanding you to do the things asked in the petition or to show cause on 
the 3d day of March, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. at the courthouse at Juneau, why 
you had not done so ; and 

Whereas, on the 5th day of March, 1917, you. the said J. F. Pugh, did file 
your answer herein in which you admitted the allegations of the petition and 
the writ of mandamus ; and you. J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, did 
file your answer ^^•herein it was stated : " That the Territorial canvassing board 
did, on the first day of March, 1917, complete its canvass and compilation of 
the returns of the general election held in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day 
of November, 1916, and that the official tally sheets made up by the said board 
were duly totaled and checked, and that the same showed the following result 
of the vote for the several candidates for Delegate to Congress from Alaska : 
Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes ; Charles A. Sulzer, 6,4.59 votes ; and James 
Wickersham, 6,490 votes." And wherein it was further stated : " That upon 
completion of the canvass and compilation of the returns and the totaling and 
checking of the tally sheets of the board, said board voted to issue certificates 
of election to the candidates for the various offices who had received the 
greatest number of votes in the said general election aforesaid ; as shown by 
the official tally sheets of the board ; and that in pursuance of such action by 
the canvassing board, and prior to the service of the alternative writ of 
mandamus upon the members thereof, a certificate of election was prepared 
by said board for issuance to James Wickersham as Delegate to Congress from 
Alaska for the term beginning March 5, 1917 ; but that before said certificate 
had been signed and issued by the board the members thereof were served 
with the writ of mandamus herein, and no further action has been taken 
looking to the issuance of said certificate of election, pending the further order 
of the court herein." And wherein it was further stated that in the canvass 
of the returns from the voting precincts named in the alternative writ of 
mandamus herein and in the petition filed in this cause, the returns from the 
voting precincts of Clwggiung, Deering, Utica. Nushagak, and Bonnifield showed 
that there had not been any oflicial ballots cast at said election, and that no 
certificate accompanied the returns from said precincts showing why nonofficial 
ballots were used at said election ; and wherein it was further stated that as 
to the said precinct of Vault the election judges did not sign the certificate of 
result form in the back of the election register and tally book, but the canvass- 
ing board received from the clerk of the United States court for the Fourth 
Judicial Division " the certificate of clerk to election returns " ; and, 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. % 139 

Whereas to said answer a demurrer was duly filed and duly argued and taken 
under advisement by the court, and afterwards, to wit, on the 20th day of 
March, 1917, the court announced its decision to the effect that in computing 
the number of votes to which each candidate was entitled it was the plain 
duty of the board, under the law, to reject — that is. not to count — the alleged 
votes from the said precincts aforesaid, which said votes aggregated Wicker- 
sham 69 and Sulzer 19 (except Nizina), and to deduct the said 69 votes re- 
turned for Wickersham from said precincts, and the said 19 votes returned 
for Sulzer from said precincts, respectively, from the number which the board 
had credited to each of the said two candidates as aforesaid ; and 

Whereas the defendants in said cause were given two days in which to 
amend their return to the said alternative Avrit. if they should so desire ; and 

Whereas the said two days expired at 12 o'clock midnight on the 22d of 
March and no amended return has been filed herein and no further cause shown 
why the alternative A-^rit should not be made peremptory ; but on the contrary 
said defendants have filed herein their statement to the effect that they did 
not desire or intend to further appear herein ; and 

Whereas on this 23d day of March, 1917, plaintiff herein duly moved that 
the alternative writ herein be made peremptory for the reason that no sufii- 
cient cause has been shown to the contrary ; and 
■ Whereas the court is satisfied that the defendants do not desire or intend 
to show any further cause, and doth now find from the records and files herein 
that if the total number of votes to which the canvassing board has returned 
that James Wickersham is entitled to (to wit, 6,490) and that Charles A. Sulzer 
is entitled to (to wit, 6,459) should suffer a reduction of 69 and 19, respectively, 
it will clearly appear that Charles A. Sulzer has received the greatest number 
of votes for the office of Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that he is 
entitled to the certificate of election therefor ; and 

Whereas the court doth further find that with the exception of making the 
deduction aforesaid and of issuing said certificate said board has completed the 
canvass ; and 

Whereas the court, on motion of plaintiff this day made, has issued an order 
making said alternative writ peremptory, 

Therefore, this is to command you, and each of you. that upon receipt of this 
writ of mandamus you do forthwith convene as a canvassing board for the 
Territory of Alaska and that you reject the votes from the said precincts of 
Choggiung. Deering, Nushagak, Utica, Bonnifield. and Vault, and that you issue 
a certificate of election to Charles A. Sulzer as having received the greatest 
number of votes for Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and that said certificate 
be in the usual form as by law provided. 

And this you are in no wise to omit. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this 23d day of March, 1917.. 

[seal.] Robert W. Jennings, Judge. 

Department of Justice, 
United States Marshal's Office, 
First Division, District of Alaska. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1, ss. 
I hereby certify that I received the within peremptory writ of mandamus 
on the 23d day of March, 1917, at Juneau, Alaska, and served the same on the 
23d day of March, 1917, at Juneau, Alaska, by leaving with each of the within 
named persons, to wit, J. F. A. Strong. Chas. E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
a copy of the within-named writ, and I further cei'tify that said services were 
made personally and in person. 

H. A. Bishop. 

U. S. Marshal. 
By H. B. FossAs, Deputy. 

Filed in the district court, District of Alaska, First Division. March 23, 
1917. 

By J. W. Bell, Cleric. 
By , Deputy. 



140 .WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Teeritoey of Alaska, 

Goveknoe's Office, 
Juneau, March 23, 1917. 
Hon. Robert W. Jennings, Judge, United States District Court, First Judicial 
Division, Juneau, Alaska. 

Deae Sib: The undersigned members of the Teritorial canvassing board beg 
to acljnowledge receipt of your letter of March 22, with reference to a commu- 
nication addressed to you, in which it was stated that the canvassing board had 
been served with a document by Mr. Emery Valentine, of Juneau, protesting 
against the counting of certain specified election returns from various voting 
precincts in the four judicial divisions in Alaska on the ground that the " dis- 
trict court holds that no document which was not inclosed with and forwarded 
to the governor's office as part of the original returns, can be counted or taken 
into consideration by the board." 

The reason for the submission of the protest to you was set out in our 
communication above referred to and forwarded to you on March 22 by the 
above-named members of the board. 

In replj we wish to say that we merely asked to be instructed as to the 
proper method or procedure in disposing of the protest above referred to, and 
your reply seems to indicate that no attention should be paid to protests 
entered by private citizens as to alleged irregularities in election returns, and, 
therefore, it would seem that the above members of the canvassing board held 
erroneous views on this matter. You also state that the court will, if we so 
desire, treat our communication of March 22 as an amended and supplemental 
answer. We wish to advise you, therefore, that we have no desire to have you 
treat the communication in that manner, nor have we any other ansAver to make 
at this time, having, as we believe, performed only what we, though apparently 
erroneously, believed was a simple duty. 

Finally, we wish to state, distinctly and unqunlifiedly, th;it having performed 
what we believed to be our duty and in the interest of no candidate, we are 
without further interest in this matter. 
Respectfully yours, 

J. F. A. Steong, Governor. 

Chaeles E. Davidson, Surveyor General. 

Filed in the district court, District of Alaska, First Division, March 23, 1917. 

J. W. Bell, Cleric. 
By , Deputy. 

[Exhibit No. 4. 5/16/17.] 

ceetificate of judges of election to election eetuens. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Third Division, ss: 
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following is a true and correct 
certificate of the result of the November, 1916, election for " Delegate to Con- 
gress," " attorney general for Alaska," " members of the Legislature of the Ter»- 
ritory of Alaska," and " against and in favor of the manufacture or sale of in- 
toxicating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," and road commissioner, 
held in the Chogiung voting precinct of the Bristol Bay recording district, third 
division. Territory of Alaska : 

Of which for Delegate to Congress — 

1. James Wickersham received twenty-five (25). 

2. Charles A. Sulzer received three (3). 

Of which for attorney general for Alaska — 

1. George B. Grigsby received four (4). 

2. George Schofield received twenty-three (23). 

Of which for member of the senate — - 

1. John Ronan received three (3). 

2. John W. Frame received twenty-three (23). 

3. E. F. German received one (1). 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 141 

Of which for members of the house of representatives — 

1. Thomas H. Holland received two (2). 

2. Charles McCallum received three (3). 

3. Thomas O. Price received three (3). 

4. Frank B. Cannon received two (2). 

5. Joseph H. Murray received twenty-four (24). 

6. W. P. Henry received twenty-three (23). 

7. John Noon received twenty-three (23). 

8. Charles M. Day received twenty -five (25). 

Of which for " Dry or Wet " — 

1. Dry received four (4). 

2. Wet received twenty-four (24). 

Of which for road commissioner — 

1. James E. Wilson received three (3). 

2. J. C. Dieringer received twenty-four (24). 

Dated at Chogiung this 7th day of November, 1916. 

Louis Hansen, 
Laes D. Nielsen, 
Adolf Osteehaus, 

Election Board. 

Teeeitoey of Alaska, 
Goveenor's Office, Juneau. 
United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, ss- 
I, J. F. A, Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska, and chairman of the 
territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, con- 
sisting of two (2) pages, is a full, true, and correct copy of the "Certificate 
of judges of election to election returns," for the Chogiung voting precinct 
of the Bristol Bay recording district, third division. Territory of Alaska, as 
received from the judges of election of said voting precinct, and on file in the 
office of the governor at Juneau, Alaska, with the returns from said precinct, 
covering the election for Delegate to Congress, and for other purposes, held in 
the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day 
of March, A. D. 1917, at Juneau, the capital of Alaska, and caused the seal 
of the Territory to be affixed hereto. 

[SEAL.] J. F. A. Steong, 

Governor of Alaska, and Chairman of 

Territorial Canvassing Board. ■ 
Attest : 

Chaeles a. Davidson, 

Ex-officio Secretary of Alaska. 

Exhibit No. 5. 5/Wn. 

ceetificate of judges of election to election eeturns. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Third Division, ss: 
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following is a true and correct 
certificate of the result of the result of the November, 1916, election for " Dele- 
gate to Congress," " attorney general for Alaska," " members of the Legislature 
of the Territory of Alaska," and "Against or in favor of the manufacture or 
sale of intoxicating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," and road com- 
missioner, hel din the Nushagak voting precinct of the Bristol Bay recording 
district, third division, Territory of Alaska : 

Of which, for Delegate to Congress — 

1. James Wickersham received ten (10). 

2. Chas. A. Sulzer received three (3). 



142 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Of which, for attoi-ney general of Alaska — 

1. George B. Grigsby received four (4). 

2. George Schofield received eight (8). 

Of which for member of the senate— 

1. John Ronan received seven (7). 

2. John W. Frame received two (2). 

3. George Dooly received three (3). 

Of which, for members of the house of representatives — 

1. Chas. McCallum received six (6). 

2. Frank B. Cannon received six (6). 

3. Joseph H. Murray received seven (7). . 

4. John Noon received four (4). 

5. Robert Hunter received four (4). 

6. Thos. Holland received eight (8). 

7. Thos. Price received six (6). 

8. W. P. Henry received four (4). 

9. Chas. M. Day received six (6). 

Of which, for " Dry or wet " — 

1. Dry received one (1). 

2. Wet received ten (10). » 

Of which for road Commissioner — 

1. J. C. Dieringer received five (5). 

2. J. E. Willson received six (6). 

Dated at Nushagak this 7th day of November, 1916. 

A. H. MiTTENDOKFF, 

p. T. Padden, 
E. A. Sanboeg, 

Election Board. 

Territory of Alaska, 
Governor's Office, Juneau. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska and chairman of the 
Territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, con- 
sisting of two (2) pages, is a full, true, and correct copy of the " Certificate of 
judges of election to election returns" for the Nushagak voting precinct, Bristol 
Bay recording district, third division, Territory of Alaska, as received from 
the judges of election of said voting precinct and on file in the office of the 
governor at Juneau, Alaska, with the returns from said precinct, covering the 
election held for Delegate to Congress, and for other purposes, on November 7, 
1916, in the Territory of Alaska. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day of 
March, A. D. 1917, at Juneau, the Capital of Alaska, and caused the seal of the 
Territory to be affixed hereto. 

[SEAL.] J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor of Alaska and Chairman of 

Territorial Canvassing Board. 
Attest : 

Charles E. Davidson, 

Ex offteio Secretary of Alaska. 

Exhibit No. 6. 5/16/17. 

Territory of Alaska, 

Second Division: 

We, the undersigned judges of election for the election held in Deering in 
the above Territory and division on November 7, 1916, hereby certifiy that the 
result of such election was as follows : 

For Delegate — Lena Morrow Lewis, none; Charles Sulzer, (6), six; James 
Wickersham, (10) ten. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 143 

For senator — Thomas McGann, (5), five; Martin F. Moran, (11) eleven; 
John Sunclback, (2) two. 

For representative — A. A. Allen, (10) ten; Andy Anderson, (4) four; Nate 
H. Coombs, (8) eight; Phil Corrigan, (9) nine; James P. Daly, (8) eight; 
Charles D. Jones, (1) one; Victor A. Julian, (9) nine; T. M. Reed, (10) ten; 
Mike Young, none. 

For attorney general — John H. Cobb, (5) five; George B. Grigsby, (12) 
twelve ; George D. Schofield, none. 

For territorial road commissioner — Barney Gibney, (8) eight; W. J. Rowe, 
(4) four; John A. Wilson, (-5) five. 

For the sale of intoxicating liquors, (6) six; against the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, ( 11 ) eleven. 

For the eight-hour law, (13) thirteen; against the eight-hour law, (2) two. 

Willis D. Wentwoeth. 
Ali^eed S. Kepnee. 
John Peteich. 

Teeeitoey of Alaska, 
Goveenoe's Office, Juneau. 
United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alqska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska and chairman of the 
territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, con- 
sisting of one (1) page, is a full, true, and correct copy of the certificate of 
judges of election to election returns for the Deering voting precinct, second 
division. Territory of Alaska, as received from the judges of election of said 
voting precinct, and on file in the office of the governor of Juneau, Alaska, with 
the returns from said precinct, covering the election for Delegate in Congress, 
and for other purposes, held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day of 
March, A. D. 1917, at Juneau, the capital of Alaska, and caused the seal of the 
Territory to be affixed heretcT. 

[sEAi.] J. F. A. Steong, 

Governor of Alaska and Chairman of Territorial Canvassing Board. 
Attest : 

Chaeles E. Davidson, 

Ex officio Secretary of Alaska. 

[Exhibit No. 7. 5/16/17.] 

duplicate CEETIFICATE of result of GENEEAL election foe DELEGATE, MEMBERS 
OF THE LEGISLATUEE, AND FOE OTHEE PURPOSES. 

Held on November 7, 1916. Utica voting precinct, Fairhaven recording dis- 
trict. Second division. Territory of Alaska. 

ceetificate. 

Teeeitoey of Alaska, 

Second Division, ss: 

We, the undersigned, having counted and canvassed the votes cast in the 
Utica voting precinct, Fairhaven recording district, second division, Territory 
of Alaska, at the general election for Delegate, members of the legislature, and 
other purposes, held on November 7, 1916, hereby certify that votes were cast 
for the following persons for the offices respectively as hereinafter set forth, 
and that votes were cast for and against measures submitted as hereinafter 
shown : 

For Delegate — Lewis, Lena Morrow, ; Sulzer, Charles A., four (4); 

Wickersham, James, thirteen (13). 

For senators, second division — McGann, Thomas, nine (9) ; Moran, Martin F., 
seven (7) ; Sundback, John, two (2). 

For representatives, second division — Allan, A. A., thirteen (13) ; Anderson, 
Andy, four (4) ; Coombs, Nate H., seven (7) ; Corrigan. Phil, sixteen (16) ; 
Daly, James P., twelve (12) ; Jones, Charles D., six (6) ; Julien, Victor A., 
four (4) ; Reed, T. M., four (4) ; Young, Mike, six (6). 



144 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

For attorney general — Cobb, John H., one (1) ; Grigsby, George B., fourteen 
(14) ; Schofield, George D., two (2). 

For road commissioner, second division — Gibney, Barney, ten (10) ; Rowe 
W. J., six (6) ; Wilson, John A., two (2). ' 

In favor of the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors — Wet, six (6). 

Against manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors — Dry, ten (10). 

For a general eight-hour law, 14 (14). 

Against a general eight-hour law, two (2). 

The total number of ballots cast was eighteen (18), of wiiich were not 

so marked as to permit canvassing. 

In witness that foregoing is true and correct record of result of said election 
we set our hands this 7th day of November, 1916. (Executed in duplicate.) 

James W. Black, 
J. A. Chidestee, 
F. G. Henry, 



* Attest : 



Judges of Election, 



Clerks. 
* Used only in incorporated towns. 

Teeritoky of Alaska, 
Goveenoe's Office, Juneau. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss. 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska, and chairman of the 
territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, con- 
sisting of two (2) pages, is a full, true, and correct copy of the "duplicate 
certificate of result of general election " for the Utica voting precinct of the 
Fairhaven recording district, second division. Territory of Alaska, as received 
from the judges of election of said voting precin^, and on file in the office of 
the governor at Juneau, Alaska, with the returns from said precinct, covering 
the election for Delegate to Congress, and for other purposes, held in the 
Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day of 
March, A. D. ]917, at Juneau, the capital of Alaska, and caused the seal of 
the Territory to be affixed hereto. 

[seal.] J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor of Alaska, and Chairman of Territorial Canvassing Board. 
Attest : 

Charles E. Davidson, 

Ex Officio Secretary of Alaska. 

Exhibit No. 8. 5/16/17. 

certificate of ji'dges of election to election returns. 

United States of Americx^., 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following is a true and correct 
certificate of the result of the November, 1916, election for " Delegate to Con- 
gress," " attorney general of Alaska," " Members of the Legislature of the 
Territory of Alaska," and " for road commissioner," and " for or against a 
general eight-hour law," and " against or in favor of the manufacture or sale 
of intoxicating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," held in the Bonnifield 
voting precinct of the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, Territory 
of Alaska : 
Of which for Delegate to Congress — 

1. Sulzer, Charles A., received one (1). 

2. Wickersham, James, received three (3). 

Of which for attorney general for Alaska — 
1. Schofield,, George B., received four (4). 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 145 

Of which for member of the senate — 

1. Sutherland, Dan. A., received four (4). 

Of wliich for members of the house of representatives — 

1. Burns, W. T., received four (4). 

2. Hess, L. C, received four (4).- 

3. Monahan, C. M., received one (1). 

4. Webster, Daniel, received one (1). 

5. Collins, Earnest B., received three (3). 

6. Nerland, Andrew, received three (3). 

Of which for road commissioner — 

1. Sabin, Melvin R., received three (3). 

2. Steil, Peter, received' one (1). 

Of which for " For or against a general eight-hour law " — 

1. For a general eight-hour law received . 

2. Against a general eight-hour law received three (3). 

Of which for " Dry or wet " — 

1. Dry received four (4). 

2. Wet received . 

Dated at No. 2, above Grubstake Creek, this 7th day of November, 1916. 

G. Elmer Gustafson, 
Arthur B. Crueger, 
Mrs. Martha Gustaeson, 

Election Board. 

Territory of Alaska, 
Governor's Office, Juneau. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Teri-itory of Alaska, and chairman of the 
territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, con- 
sisting of two (2) pages, is a full, true, and correct copy of the " Certificate of 
judges of election to election returns," for the Bonnifield voting precinct of the 
Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, Territory of Alaska, as received 
from the judges of election of said voting precinct, and on file in the office of 
the governor, at .Juneau. Alaska, with the returns from said precinct, covering 
the election for Delegate to Congress, and for other purposes, held in the Terri- 
tory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day of 
March, A. D. 1917, at .Tuneau. the capital of Alaska, and caused the seal of the 
Territory to be affixed hereto. 

[SEAL.] J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor of Alaska, and Chairman of Territorial Canvassing Board. 

Attest: 

Charles E. Davidson, 

Ex Officio Secretary of Alaska. 

Exhibit No. 9. 5/16/17. 
certificate of clerk to election returns. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following is a true and correct 
certificate of the result of the November, 1916, election for " Delegate to Con- 
gress," " attorney general for Alaska," " members of the Legislature of the 
Territory of Alaska," " road commissioner," and " for or against a general 
eight-hour law," and " against or in favor of the manufacture or sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," held in the Vault voting pre- 
cinct of the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, Territory of Alaska : 

Of which for Delegate to Congress — 

1. Lena Morrow Lewis received three (3). 

2. Charles A. Sulzer received two (2), 

3. James Wickersham received eight (8). 

Of which for attorney general for Alaska — 

1. John H. Cobb received two (2). 

2. George B. Grigsby received four (4). 

3. George D. Schofield received six (6). 

13289—17 10 



146 WICKERSHAM VS. SUI./KR. 

Of which for member of the senate — 

1. Daniel McCabe received ten (10). 

2. Thomas A. McGowan received one (1). 

3. Dan A. Sutlierland received three (3). 

Of which for members of the house of representatives — 

1. Z. C. Bean received six (6). 

2. W. T. Burns received four (4). 

3. E. B. Collins received six (6). 

4. J. AV. Dunn received one (1). 

5. J. K. Green received — . 

6. L. C. Hess received eight (8). 

7. G. W. Huey received three (3). 

8. A. M. Kilgore received — . 

9. G. W. Ledger received two (2). 

10. C. M. Monahan received four (4). 

11. Andrew Nerland received six (6). 

12. W. A. Vinal received — . 

13. Daniel Webster received 1 (1). 

14. Lars Westenvik received four (4). 

15. C. K. Snow received six (6). 

Or which for road commissioner — 

1. Peter Jensen received — . 

2. H. H. Ross received four (4). 

3. Melvin R. Sabin received five (5). 

4. Peter Steil received three (3). 

Of which for " For or against a general eight-hour law " — 

1. For a general eight-hour law received thirteen (13). 

2. Against a general eight-hour law received one (1). 

Of which for " Dry or wet " — 

1. Dry received nine (9). 

2. Wet received five (5). 

Dated at Vault, this 7th day of November, 1916. 

James Wilson, 
Nettie Van Beklo, 
William Wiley, 

Election Board. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
I, the undersigned clerk of the district court for the Territory of Alaska, 
fourth division, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, 
and correct copy of the original certificate of results of the November 7, 1916, 
election for " Delegate to Congress," "Attorney general of Alaska," " Members 
of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska," and " Road commissioner," 
and " For or against a general eight-hour law," and "Against or in favor of the 
manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," 
of the Vault voting precinct of the Fairbanks recording district, as the same 
appears on file and of record in my office. 

In testimony whereof, I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of 
the said court at Fairbanks, Alaska, this 11th day of November, 1916. 

J. E. Clakk, Clerk. ^ 
[seal.] , Deputy. 

Teekitoey of Alaska. 
Governoe's Office, Juneau. 
LTnited States of America, 
Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska, and chairman of 
the territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing document, 
consisting of three (3) pages, is a full, true, and correct copy of the " Certifi- 
cate of clerk to election returns," as received from the clerk of the district 
court at Fairbanks. Alaska, and on file in the office of the governor of the 
Territory, with the returns received from the election board of the Vault vot- 
ing precinct of the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division of Alaska, 
covering the election held in said Vault voting precinct on the 7th day of 
November, 1916, for Delegate to Congress and for other purposes. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 147 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this 29th day of 
March, A. D. 1917, at Juneau, the capital of Alasli^a, and caused the seal of the 
Territory to be affixed hereto. 

[seal.] J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor of Alaska, and Chainnan of Territorial Canvassing Board. 
Attest : 

Chaeles B. Davidson, 

Ex Officio Secretary of Alaska. 

[Exhibit No. 10, 5/16/17.] 

ceetificate of clebk to election returns. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
We, tlie undersigned, hereby certify that the follov^ang is a true and correct 
certificate of the result of the November, 1916, election for " Delegate to Con- 
gress," " Attorney general for Alaska," "Members of the Legislature of the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska," " Road commissioner," and " For or against a general eight- 
liour law," and " Against or in favor of the manufacture or sale of intoxicating 
liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," held in the Vault voting precinct of 
the Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, Territory of Alaska : 

Of which for Delegate to Congress — 

1. Lena Morrow Lewis received three (3). 

2. Charles A. Sulzer received two (2). 

3. James Wickersham received eight (8). 

Of which attorney general for Alaska — 

1. John H. Cobb red-eived two (2). 

2. George B. Grigsby received Four (4). 

3. George D. Schofield received six (6). 

Of which for member of the senate — 

1. Daniel McCabe received ten (10). 

2. Thomas A. McGowan received one (1). 

3. Dan A. Sutherland received three (3). 

Of which for members of the house of representatives — 

1. Z. C. Bean received six (6). 

2. W, T. Burns received four (4). 

3. E. B. Collins received six (6). 

4. J, W. Dunn received one (1). 

5. J. K. Green received . 

6. L. C. Hess reecived eight (8). 

7. G. W. Huey received three (3). 

8. A. M. Kllgore received . 

9. G. W. Ledger received two (2). 

10. C. M. Monahan received four (4). 

11. Andrew Nerland received six (6). 

12. C. K. Snow received six (6). 

13. W. A. Vinal received . 

14. Daniel Webster received one (1). 

15. Lars Westenvik received four (4). 

Of which for road commissioner — 

1. Peter .Jensen received . 

2. H. H. Ross received four (4). 

3. Melvin R. Sabin received five (5). 

4. Peter Steil received three (3). 

Of which for " For or against a general eight-hour law " — 

1. For a general eight-hour law received thirteen (13). 

2. Against a general eight-hour law received one (1). 

Of which " Dry " or " Wet "— 

1. Dry deceived nine (9). 

2. Wet received five (5). 

Dated at Vault this 7th day of November, 1916. 

James Wilson, 
Nettie Van Beelo, 
William Wiley, 
I Election Board, 



148 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
I, the undersigned clerk of the district court for the Territory of Alaslia, 
fourtli division, do hereby certify that tlie above and foregoing is a full, true,, 
and correct copy of the original certificate of results of the November 7, 1916, 
election for " Delegate to Congress," "Attorney general of Alaska," " Members 
of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska," and " Road commissioner," and 
*' For or against a general eight-hour law^," and "Against or in favor of the 
manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in Alaska after January 1, 1918," of 
the Vault voting precinct of the Fairbanks recording district, as the same ap- 
pears in the files in my office. 

In testimony whereof I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Fairbanks, Alaska, this 22d day of March, 1917. 

J. E. Clark, Clerk. 

, Deputy. 

Exhibit No. 11. 5/16/17. 

Certified Copy of Election Register and List of Persons Who Signed Chal- 
lenge Oath Forms — Fort Gibbon Voting Precinct, in the Fort Gibbon 
Recording District, Foxirth Judicial Division, Territory of Alaska, Gen- 
eral Election of November 7, 1916. 

election register — important notice to election board. 

Execute certificate found on page No. 7. Execute certificate found on pages 
Nos. 14, 15, and 16. You must do this. If you fail to execute said certificates 
in both books, your return will be invalid. 



No. of 
persons 
voting. 



Names of voters. 



W. J. Casey 

J. E. B. Cartwright. 

Betsey Waldron 

W. H. Bergman 

G. Thornblade 

John Manook 

Chas.E. Feder 

Steven Bauer 

Nathan C.Hatfield. 

Eni R . Klein 

Wm. J. Scott 

Michael Sullivan 

HughT. Phillips.... 
Cleveland Douglas . . 
Joseph Grabowski... 

John H. Davis 

Thomas J. Galvin. . . 

Silas Hewitt 

Daniel Doherty 

Jasper L. Moser 

Guy H. Bergman. . . 

Wm. E.Wood 

Albert J. Haas 

Daniel R. Allen 

W. J. Shannon 



Voted. 



Vote 
rejected. 



No. of 
persons 
voting. 



Names of voters. 



John D. McNeely 

Walter H. Dehas 

Oruel Jones 

George W. Penington. 

Harry M. Swartz 

Lon Snepp 

Louis G.Selk 

Ralph J. McGoingle... 

Clarence Hefron 

Frederick Huffman . . . 
Emily Robinson Selk. 

Harry F. Clark 

L ester B . 1 eGier 

Edward J. Toland 

Basil Fitzwilliams 

John O . Sherlock 

Bloomer W. Roberts.. 

Ralph O. Wilson 

Sidney Bridgewater. . . 

Edward J. Kehoe 

Joseph Barton 

Mrs. E. J. Bergman... 

O. G. Berry 

T. Drury 

Melvin Jones 



Voted. 



Vote 
rejected. 



(Pages 2 to 6, inclusive, blank.) 



(7) 
election eegister- 



-continued. 



Names of voters rejected. 


Reasons for not accepting vote. 



















Note.— If voter is rejected, refer by number in column above to number opposite voter's name in register. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 149 

certificate. 
United States of America, 

Territorj/ of Alaska, fourth division, ss: 
We, W. H. Bergman and G. Thornblade and Guy H. Bergman and 



and , respectively, judges and clerks of election, 

constituting the election board for Fort Gibbon recording district, or town of 
Tanana, fourth division. Territory of Alaska, do hereby certify that the within 
and foregoing election register, containing one written page, constitutes a true 
and correct list of all the names of and all data required by law relative to 
all persons who voted or offered to vote at the election held in said voting 
precinct. Territory of Alaska, fourth division, on the 7th day of November, 
1916. and that the total number of persons voting thereat was fifty (50) ; and we 
do further certify that the said election register was kept and signed in duplicate, 
as required by statute. 

Dated at Tanana, Alaska, this 7th day of November, 1916. 

W. H. Bergman, 
Gus Thornblade, 
Guy H. Bergman. 

Judges. 
G. Thornblade, 
Guy H. Bergman, 

Clerks. 

XIST OF CHALLENGE OATHS ACCOMPANYING THE ELECTION RETLTRNS OF THE FORT 
GIBBON VOTING PRECINCT, FORT GIBBON RECORDING DISTRICT, ALASKA. 

Thirty-four (34) challenge oaths, each in the following form, and each exe- 
cuted before W. H. Bergman, judge of election, were included with the election 
returns received from the judges of election of the Fort Gibbon voting pre- 
cinct, Fort Gibbon recording district, fourth judicial division. Territory of 
Alaska, covering the general election of November 7, 1916 : 

challenge oath. 

XTnited States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, division No. four, Fort Gibhon voting precinct, ss: 
I do solemnly swear that I am 21 years of age and a citizen of the United 
States ; that I have lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and have been 
a resident of the fourth judicial district for 30 days next preceding this election, 
and that I have not voted at this election. So help me God. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7tli day of November, 1916. 

W. H. Bergman, Judge of Election. 

The following is a list of the names signed to the 34 challenge oaths received 
with the election returns above mentioned : Charles E. Feder, Steven Bauer, 
Nathan C. Hatfield, Michael Sullivan, Hugh T. Phillips, Cleveland Douglas, 
Joseph Grabowski, John H. Davis, Thomas J. Galvin, Silas Hewitt, Daniel 
Doherty, Jasper L. Moser, Will'iam E. Wood, Albert J. Haas, Daniel R. Allen, 
W. J. Shannon, John D. McNeely, Walter H. Dehas, Orvel Jones, George W. 
P(?nington, Louis G. Selk, Ralph J. McGoingle, Clarence Hefron, Frederick L. 
Huffman, Harry F. Clark, Lester B. LeGier, Edward T. Toland, Basil Fitz- 
williams John O. Sherlock, Ralph O. Wilson, Sidney Bridgewater, Joseph 
Barton, T. Drury, Melvin Jones. 

Territory of Axaska, 
Governor's Office, Juneau. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss. 

I, J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska and chairman ,of the 
Territorial canvassing board, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a 
full, true, and correct copy of the list of voters whose names appear in the 
election register of the Fort Gibbon voting precinct. Fort Gibbon recording 
district, fourth judicial division. Territory of Alaska, and a full, true, and 
correct copy of the challenge oath form used for challenged voters in said 
precinct, and a true and correct list of the names of persons who signed the 34 
challenge oaths which accompanied the election returns from said voting pre- 
cinct ; all of which have been this day taken from the original register and 



150 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

challenge oaths on file in the office of the Governor of Alaska, at Juneau, 
Alaska ; the said pages including also the certiiicate of the judges of election to 
the list of voters recorded in the election register ; all of said documents having 
been filed in the governor's office as a part of the official election returns of the 
Fort Gibbon voting precinct aforesaid, for the general election held on November 
7, 1916. And I further certify that said election returns including fifty (50) official 
ballots, which ballots are on file vfith said returns in the office of the governor 
at Juneau. 

In testimony w^hereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the 
seal of the Territory of Alaska to be hereto affixed, this 16th day of April, 1917. 

[SEAL.] J. F. A. Strong, 

Oovemor of Alaska, and Chairman of Territorial Canvassing Board. 

Attest : 

Chaeles E. Davidson, 

Ex officio Secretary of Alaska. 

Exhibit No. 12. 5/16/'17. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Wae Depaetment, 
Washington, May 15, 1917. 

I hereby certify that the following is shown by records on file in the Adju- 
tant General's office of the War Department : 

Charles E. Feder, private. Quartermaster Corps, was accepted for enlist- 
ment and was enlisted November 18, 1914, at the Presidio of San Francisco, 
Cal. 

Nathan C. Hatfield, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at Oklahoma, Okla. ; was enlisted April 10, 1914, at Fort Logan, 
Colo., and was honorably discharged at Fort Gibbon, Alaska, April 27, 1916. He 
reenlisted April 28, 1916, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Hugh T. Phillips, bugler, Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at St. Louis, Mo., and was enlisted March 10, 1915, at Jefferson Bar- 
racks, Mo. 

Joseph Grabowski, private, Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at Cleveland, Ohio, and' was enlisted February 14, 1914, at Co- 
lumbus Barracks, Ohio. 

Thomas F. Galvin. private, Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at San Francisco. Cal., and was enlisted March 7, 1914, at 
Fort McDowell, Cal. 

Daniel Dolierty, corporal, Quartermaster Corps, was accepted for enlistment 
at San Francisco, Cal., and was enlisted August 24. 1914, at Fort McDowell, Cal. 

William E. Wood, private, first class. Medical Department, was accepted for 
enlistment at Seattle, Wash., and was enlisted July 1, 1914, at Fort Lawton, 
Wash. 

Daniel B. Allen, sergeant. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at St. Louis, Mo. ; was enlisted July 20, 1911, at Jefferson Bar- 
racks, Mo., and was honorably discharged .July 19, 1914, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 
He reenlisted July 20, 1914. at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

John D, McNeely, private, first class. Quartermaster Corps, was accepted 
for enlistment at Oklahoma, Okla., and was enlisted February 6, 1914, at Fort 
Logan, Colo. 

Orvel .Tones, mess sergeant. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at Spokane, Wash., and was enlisted INIarch 29, 1914, at Fort 
George Wright, Wash. 

Louis G. Selk, cook. Company G, Signal Corps, was accepted for enlistment 
and was enlisted December 16, 1913, at Fort Lawton. Wash. 

Harry F. Clark, pi-ivate, first class. Medical Department, was accepted for 
enlistment at AVaco, Tex., and was enlisted April 21, 1914. at Fort Logan, Colo. 

Edward J. Toland, private, first class, Company G, Signal Corps, was ac- 
cepted, for enlistment and enlisted October 30, 1912, at Fort Wood, N. Y., and 
was honorably discharged October 29, 1915, at Fort St. Michael, Alaska. He 
reenlisted October .30, 1915, at Fort St. Michael, Alaska. 

John O. Sherlock, sergeant, first class, Company G, Signal Corps, was ac- 
cepted for enlistment and was enlisted July 19, 1914, at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 

Sidney Bridgewater, private. Company G, Signal Corps, was accepted and 
enlisted May 1, 1914, at Fort Missoula, Mo., and was honorably discharged 
May 1, 1916, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. He reenlisted May 2, 1916, at Fort Gib- 
bon, Alaska. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 151 

Joseph Drury, corporal. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at St. Louis, Mo., and was enlisted March 14, 1914, at JefEerson 
Barracks, Mo. , ^ 

Steven Bauer, bugler. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at Hammond, Ind., and was enlisted March 6, 1914, at Jefferson 
Barracks, Mo. 

Michael Sullivan, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at Chicago, 111. ; was enlisted March 13, 1913, at Jefferson Barracks, 
Mo., and was honorably discharged April 27, 1916, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. He 
reenlisted April 28, 1916, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Cleveland Douglas, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at Williamsburg, Ky., and was enlisted March 18, 1914, at Co- 
lumbus Barracks, Ohio. 

John H. Davis, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at Fort Worth, Tex., and was enlisted March 2, 1914, at Fort 
Logan, Colo. 

Silas Hewitt, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at St. Paul, Minn., and was enlisted March 5, 1913, at Fort Snel- 
ling, Minn. 

Jasper L. Moser, private, first class. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was 
accepted for enlistment at Spokane, Wash. ; was enlisted December 2, 1913, at 
Fort George Wright, Wash., and was honorably discharged April 27, 1916, at 
Fort Gibbon, Alaska. He reenlisted April 28, 1916, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Albert J. Haas, sergeant, Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment and was enlisted September 5, 1912, at Fort Lincoln, N. Dak., and 
was honorably discharged September 4. 1915, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. He re- 
enlisted September 5, 1915, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Willard J. Shannon, sergeant. Quartermaster Corps, was accepted for en- 
listment at New Orleans, La., and was enlisted December 17, 1912, at Jackson 
Barracks. La. 

Walter H. Dehas, corporal. Company G, Signal Corps, was accepted for en- 
listment at Dallas, Tex., and was enlisted December 10, 1913, at Fort Logan, 
Colo. 

George W. Penington, private, first class. Quartermaster Corps, was accepted 
for enlistment at Bluefield, W. Va., and was enlisted February 12, 1914, at 
Columbus Barracks, Ohio. 

Ralph J. McGonigle, private, first class. Medical Department, was accepted 
for enlistment at St. Louis, Mo., and. was enlisted March 7, 1914, at Jefferson 
Barracks, Mo. 

Frederick L. Huffman, cook. Medical Depai'tment. was accepted for enlist- 
ment at San Francisco, Cal., and was enlisted June 7, 1915. at Fort McDow- 
ell, Cal. 

Lester B. LeGier, private, first class. Company G, Signal Corps, was accepted 
for enlistment at St. Louis, Mo. ; was enlisted August 13, 1912, at Jefferson 
Barracks, Mo., and was honorably discharged August 12, 1915, at Fort St. 
Michael, Alaska. He reenlisted August 13, 1915, at Fort St. Michael, Alaska. 

Basil Fitzwilliams. private, first class. Company G, Signal Corps, was ac- 
cepted for enlistment at San Francisco, Cal., and was enlisted December 5, 1913, 
at Fort McDowell, Cal. 

Ralph O. Wilson, private. Company G. Signal Corps, was enlisted October 20, 
1913, at Fairbanks, Alaska. At enlistment he gave his residence as Watson- 
ville, Cal. 

Joseph Barton, private. Company B, Fourteenth Infantry, was accepted for 
enlistment at Joplin, Mo., and was enlisted March 15 1915, at Jefferson Bai-- 
racks. Mo. 

Melvin Jones, private first class. Company B. 14th Infantry, was accepted 
for enlistment at Chicago, 111., and was enlisted March 16, 1914, at Jefferson 
Barracks, Mo. 

I hereby also certify that I have made an examination of the records on 
file in The Adjutant General's Office of the War Department and that I have 
found no record showing that any man bearing the name Clarence Hefrom has 
been in any Army organization that was stationed at Fort Gibbon, Alaska, 
on November 7, 1916, or enlisted in the Regular Army within the last eight 
years. 

H. P. McCain, 
Brigadier General, United States Army, The Adjutant General. 



152 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

I hereby certify that H. P. McCain, who signed the foregoing certificate, is 
The Adjutant General of the Army, and that to his certificate as such full faith 
and credit are and ought to be given. 

In testimony whereof I, NeAvton D. Baker, Secretary of War, have hereunto 
caused the seal of the War Department to be affixed and my name to be sub- 
scribed by the assistant and chief clerk of said department, at the cit5' of 
Washington, this loth day of May, 1917. 

[seal.] Newton D. Bakek, 

Secretary of War. 
By John C. Scofield, 

Assistant, and Chief Clerk. 

Exhibit No. 13. 5/16/17. 

Tekritoky of Alaska, 

Go\nERNOE's Office, 

Juneau, April 16, 1911. 
Hon. James Wickeesham, 

Congress Hall. Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : Inclosed herewith you will find a certified copy of the election 
register of the Fort Gibbon voting precinct, together with a list of the names 
of persons who signed challenge oaths and a copy of the form of challenge oath 
used, as contained in the original returns received by this ofilce from the 
judges of election at the Fort Gibbon voting precinct. 

These certified documents are forwarded in response to the request contained 
in your telegram of the 14th instant, reading as follows : 

" Please forward by mail certified record names parties voting Fort Gibbon 
precincts who were challenged and swore in vote. Understand they are soldiers. 
Want information War Department. Send any information showing they are 
soldiers." 

While I have been unofficially advised that the persons who swore in their 
votes in the Fort Gibbon voting precinct were soldiers from the fort, there 
is nothing in the records of the election board showing that such was the case. 
In fact, aside from the challenge oaths, the returns contained no record what- 
ever of the matter. 

Faithfully yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, Oovernor. 

Exhibit No. 14. 5/16/17. 

Washington, D. C, May 12, 1917. 
v. G. Meyers, 

Eagle, Alaska. 
Have personal interview^ with each soldier who voted November 7th last at 
Eagle and ask each if he voted for Charles A. Sulzer. Send me night letter 
giving full name and answer, yes or not. Show this telegram to each soldier 
and ask him to answer fairly. > 

James Wickeesham. 

Exhibit No. 15. 5/16/17. 

Eagle, Alaska, Alay 1^, 1917. 
Hon. James Wickee*sham. 

Washington, D. C: 
Compliance with your night letter, Barney R. Peppersack. Squire Lowry, 
and Charles B. Murphy answer yes. James S. McDowell declines answer. 

U. G. Myers. 
Exhibit No. 16. 5/16/17. 

War Department. 
Washington, May 15, 1917. 
I hereby certify that the following is shown by records on file in The Ad- 
jutant General's Office of the War Department : 

Barney R. Peppersack, private first class, Signal Corps, was accepted for 
enlistment at Paducah, Ky., and was enlisted February 23. 1914, at JefEerson 
Barracks. Mo., and was serving on November 7, 1916, in Alaska. 

Squire Lowry, private first class. Quartermaster Corps, reenlisted June 25, 
1914, at Fort Winfield Scott, Cal., and on November 7, 1916, was serving at 
Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Charles B. Murphy, sergeant, Company G. Signal Corps, reenlisted September 
25, 1916, at Fort Leavenwortli, Kans., and was serving in Alaska on November 
7, 1916. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 153 

James S. McDowell, private first class. Company G, Signal Corps, was ac- 
cepted for enlistment at San Francisco, Cal. ; was enlisted February 26, 1915, 
at Fort McDowell, Cal., and was serving in Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

H. P. McCain, The Adjutant General. 

I hereby certify that H. P. McCain, who signed the foregoing certificate, is 
The Adjutant General of the Army, and that to his certification as such fuU 
faith and credit are and ought to be given. 

In testimony whereof I, Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War, have hereunto 
caused the seal of the War Department to be affixed and my name to be sub- 
scribed by the assistant and chief clerk of the said department, at the city 
of Washington, this 15th day of May, 1917. 

[seal.] Newton D. Baker, 

Secretary of War. 
By John C. Scofield, 
Assistant and Chief Clerk. 
Exhibit No. 17. 5/16/17. 

Teeeitory of Alaska, 

Goveenoe's Office, 
Juneau, December 29, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickeesham. 

Delegate from' Alaska, Washington, D. C. 
Deae Sie: According to an opinion of the counsel for the Territory made 
at the request of this office the canvassing board must meet not earlier than 
January 7 next nor later than January 16 next, for the purpose of canvassing 
the vote cast at the election of November 7 last. The board, therefore, will 
not meet earlier than January 16. You. as one of the candidates for Delegate, 
may desire to be represented at such meeting or meetings bj^ counsel. 
I am, yours, very truly, 

J. F. A. Steong, 
Governor, Member of Canvassing Board. 

Exhibit No. 18. 5/16/17. 

Washington, D. C, January 15, 1917. 
"Governor J. F. A. Strong. 

Member Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska. 
Letter received. Section 5, article 1, Constitution United States, provides 
each House shall be the .judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its 
own members. The Alaska canvassing board has no authority under act creat- 
ing it to do more than tabulate returns, canvas and compile in writing, and 
issue certificate to candidate having the greatest number of votes- for Delegate 
on the face of the returns. Any contest or trial must be begun before the House 
of Representatives. See Hines Precedents, volume 1, section 423. Please give 
copy to Emory Valentine. 



Delegate from Alaska. 
Exhibit No. 19. 5/16/17. 

January 15, 1917. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. 
My Dear Goveenoe : I have your letter of December 29, which reached my 
office this date, advising me that it was the purpose of the canvassing board 
to compile the returns and declare the result of the delegate election not earlier 
than to-morrow. Since I could not avail myself of an answer in writing I have 
this day sent you a telegram as follows : 

" Washington, D. C, January 15 1917. 
" Governor J. F. A. Steong, 

'^Member Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alnska. 
" Letter received. Section 5. article 1, Constitution United states, provides each 
House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its own 
members. The Alaska convassing board has no authority under act creating it 
to do more than tabulate returns, canvass and compile in writing, and issue 
certificate to candidate having the greatest number of votes for Delegate on the 
face of the returns. Any contest or trial must be begun before the House of 
Representatives. See Hines Precedents, volume 1, section 423. Please give 
copy to Emory Valentine." 
Respectfully, 



154 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Exhibit No. 20. 5/16/17. 

Territory of Alaska, 

Governor's Office, 
Juneau, January 18, 1917. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate to Congress, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of January 15, 
with reference to tbe duties of the canvassing board. 

In reply I have to advise you that these duties were, I think, fairly well 
understood by the canvassing board, and it was not the intention of the' board 
to go behind the election returns. The notification sent you was formal and 
merely an act of courtesy, an identical notification having been sent to Mr. 
Sulzer. Tlie board mill not meet until Friday, the 19th instant, owing to the 
absence of Mr. Pugh, collector of customs, who has been absent from the 
Territory for some time. I believe that all of the election returns have been 
received except those from Bristol Bay and a few precincts on the Alaska 
Peninsula, and these. I understand, reached Seward last Saturday and should 
arrive here within a few days. 

A copy of your telegram was forwarded to Mr. Valentine as per your request. 
Yours, very truly, 

J. A. Strong, Governor. 
Exhibit No. 21. 5/16/17. 



(Copy.) 



Department of Justice, 
Nome, Alaska, Fehruary 12, 191", 



J. F. A. Strong, Governor, 

Chairman Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska. 
Sir: I have the honor to forward herewith a certified copy of affidavit of 
John Petrich and certificate of Alfred S. Kepner, judges of election, Deering 
voting precinct, and a certificate of the judges of election of the Utica voting- 
precinct, second division, in the matter of using special ballots at the general 
1917 election in their respective precincts. 
Advisory telegram sent you this day. 
Yours, very truly, 

G. A. Adams, Clerk. 
United States of America, 
Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, John Petrich, being duly sworn, upon oath depose and say that I was one 
of the judges of election of the Deering voting precinct. Territory of Alaska, 
for the election of November 7, 1916. 

That the election papers used at that election were all made by the judges, 
for the reason that the regular official ballots did not arrive in Deering in time 
for said election, and I am informed that they did not arrive for about two 
weeks thereafter. 

John Petrich. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of February, 1917. 
[seal.] Alfred S. Kepner, 

Notary Public for the District of Alaska. 
My commission expii'es May 12, 1918. 

I hereby certify that I was a judge of election at Deering on November 7, 
1916, and have read the above affidavit, and the facts therein are true. 

Alfred S. Kepner. 

Indorsed : Filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court of Alaska, 
second division, at Nome, February 12, 1917. 

G. A. Adams, Clerk. 

By , Deputy. 

We the undersigned judges of election, held the 7th day of November, 1916. 
at the Utica voting precinct, in the Fairhaven recording district, hereby certify 
that at the time of said election there had been no ballots received, and Mr. 
Kepner, of Deering, had the form of ballots telephoned from Candle and re- 
peated it to the Utica, and we wrote the ballots, using the form as we re- 
ceived it. 

James W. Black, 
F. G. Henry, 
J. A. Chidester. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 155 

United States of Ameeica, 

District of Alaska, ss: 

On this 18th clay of January, A. D. 1917, personally came before me, Thomas 
P. Roust, a notary public in and for said district, the within-named James W. 
Black, F. G. Henry, J. A. Chidester, to me personally known to be the identical 
persons described within and who executed the within instrument, and 
acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely, for the uses and pur- 
poses therein mentioned. 

Witness my hand and seal this 18th day of January, 1917. 

[seal.] Thomas P. Roust, 

Notary Public in and for the District of Alaska. 

My commission expires September 9, 1917. 

Indorsed: Filed in the office of tlie clerk of the District Court of Alaska,, 
second division, at Nome, February 12, 1917. 

G. A. Adams, Clerk. 
By , Deputy. 

United States of America, 

District of Alaska, Second Division, ss: 

I, G. A. Adams, clerk of the district court, for tlie District of Alaska, second 
division, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the 
original affidavit and certificate of judges of election, Deering and Utica voting- 
precincts, covering the matter of using special ballots at general 1917 election, 
now on file and of record in my office at Nome, in the District of Alaska, and the 
same is a true and perfect transcript of said original and of the whole thereof. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 12th day of February, A. D. 
1917. 

[seal of court.] G. a. Adams, Clerk. 

By W. C. McGuiEE, Deputy. 

[Indorsement.] 

No. . 

In the District Court for the District of Alaska, second division. 

Certified Copy of Certificate and Affidavit of Judges of Election, Deering 
and Utica Voting Precincts, Covering the Matter of Using Special Bal- 
lots AT General 1917 Election. 

Territory of Alaska. 
Go\Ti:RNOR's Office, Juneau 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I. J. F. A. Strong, governor of the Territory of Alaska, and Chairman of tLd- 
Territorial Canvassing Board, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, 
and correct copy of the original letter of transmittal dated February 12. 1917, 
signed by G. A. Adams, clerk of the district court, second division, Nome, 
Alaska, and of the certified copy of affidavit of John Petrich and certificate of 
Alfred S. Kepner, judges of election, Deering voting precinct, and certificate of 
the judges of election of the Utica voting precinct, second division, Alaska, in 
the matter of using special ballots in the general 1917 election in the precincts 
named. 

I further certify that the original of said letter, with the certified copies of 
the documents therein referred to, as above enumerated, was received at the 
governor's office on the 4th day of April, 1917, and that the same is now on 
file in said office, with the election returns of the general 1917 election. 

Witness mv hand and the seal of the Territory of Alaska this 4th day of 
April, A. D. i917. 

[SEAL.] J. F. A. STRONG, 

Governor of Alaska, Chairman of Territorial Canvassing Board. 
Attest : 

Charles E. Davidson, 

Ex Officio Secretary of Alaska. 



156 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER, 

Exhibit No. 22. 5/16/17. 

Office of the Postmaster General, 

Washington, D. C, May i//, 1917. 
I certify that the annexed letter addressed to Hon. James Wickersliam April 
7, 1917, by the Second Assistant Postmaster General, relating to the mail serv- 
ice for Nnshagak, Dillingham, and other points on Bristol Bay, Alaska, during 
the summer, fall, and winter of 1916, is a true statement of fact as shown by 
the records and files in this department. 

In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand, and caused the seal of the 
Post Office Department to be affixed, at the city of Washington, the day and 
year above written. 

[seal.] a. S. BURLESON, 

Postmaster- General of the United States of America. 

Post Office Department, 
Second Assistant Postmaster General. 

Washington, April 7, 1917. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

House of Representatives. 
My Dear Mr. Wickersham : Referring to your personal inquiry to-day, I 
have the honor to inform you that the mail service authorized for Nushagak, 
Dillingham, and other points on Bristol Bay, Alaska, consists of one round 
trip a month from May 1 to August 31 on steamboat route No. 78070, Seward 
to Nushagak, and three round trips between November 1, 1916, and March 31, 
1917, by carrier on emergency route No. 78235, Dilingham by Nushagak and 
Naknek to Cold Bay (n. o.). 

The last trip by boat of the season of 1916 on route No. 78070 arrived at 
Nushagak August 31, 1916. There was no further service authorized until the 
beginning of the winter period, November 1. The carrier under that authori- 
zation left Dillingham on his first trip December 1, 1916, and departed from 
Cold Bay (n. o.) January 8, 1917, without carrying any mail, because of the 
fact that the mail steamer on the route between Seward and Unalaska was 
unable owing to weather conditions to effect a landing at Cold Bay (n. o.). 
According to reports the first mail delivered on the route during the winter 
season of 1916-17 reached Dillingham February 8, 1917. 

It is very difficult for the mail steamer to make a landing at Cold Bay (n. o.), 
and it appears that the consequent irregular service on the connecting route 
from Dillingham to Cold Bay (n. o.) can not be avoided. 
Yours, very truly. 

Otto Praeger, 
Second Assistant Postmaster General. 

Exhibit No. 23. 5/16/17. 

JtJNEATJ, Alaska, March 2j, 1917. 
United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Toion of Juneau, ss: 
John Rustgard, being first duly sw^orn, deposes and says that the hereto 
attached tally sheet is a carbon copy of the official tally sheet prepared under 
the direction of the Territorial canvassing board during the canvass of the 
returns of the election held in the Territory of Alaska November 7. 1916: that 
said tally represents the results arrived at by the canvassing board before the 
writ of mandamus was served on the 2d day of March : that the attached carbon 
copy was received by deponent from the office of the surveyor general : that the 
latter official has refused to certify to said tally sheet as a true copy, for the 
reason that the original tally had to be subsequently changed pursuant to a writ 
of mandamus issued March 23, 1917. 

John Rustgard. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of March, 1917. 
[seal.] Alfred E. Maltby, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska. 
My commission expires on the 7th day of June, 1919. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



157 



•9JB3910a 10} 910A IBJOX 






•SniJ9U^0S 






■ON 



C0t~*»O'^CO"^"^i— I •iONtMCO -t-H-^iOO-^TtiM -W -CD 



■S9A 



OlQOi— lC<)t>.t^cD'^THcDOi-lCOO»OcDOr^OO'000'-<>00> 



(Nr-H T-H 



toco --* « 



-2g 



■^9A\. 



i-H-^OO^HOSUSOOTtllOT-HOONO^t^T-HCNOOC^COlMMOOOT-t 
, ... _. _ ^O-" — - ■ 



■* >0 COtH»Ot-h ^ o -^ 



C^ i-Hi-l(M lO 



■Aia 



C<HM'<^t>COCOC>aiOOOi(Mj-H^C005t^i-lTHQ005f-(CD>OC<l»0 
■*Cq r-l 



^O.-l00C<I^C^i-l COiO(M(N(N^^^^t^O 



a "090 'Piagoqos 



- — — t^ 00 CO "^ -^ (M 



OtO <N CO 



•g -090 'XqsSuo 



CC^HOOcDf-HrfiC^T-H^HCOOOOiOt-H-^l^COT-l-^COGOaiCOiOC 



■* ,-1^ 90>O lO(MCOr-<.-( 



Oi-H rt ■* 



•H nqoj: 'qqoo 



Tt^0005i-HOC<:>'-H':0O>i-HNCit^00rt<(NO00»OOC0t0I>'*l>r 



1-H rJH 00 CO (N CN T-l 



»0 (N (M I— 1 C^ Oi 



sal 

o 3 9 



"0 -pa 'imqimH 



i>..-iasc^a3cDOi»-HTj<iot>.ior--^t>-t~-oicoi>.ooi>.t^'^o:a:> 



COCOi-4i-l »OI>. CO CO T-l 



05 t> »-( i-H 1— I i-l TTi »0 



■g j9'^8d:'i:iiBa 



lOcOCOCOiOCOi— <C0G0OC00i»O>O0S-^-^0lC0O00»-Ha5t^O 
Tt^ C>< (N Cfl OI>> tp (N TjH »-< 1-H O Oj l> .-I :D (N "^ O 



•J9:;9^ '^[OTinJooopf 



GOOiC^.-tOOOOit^OOtNOOOOOOTjHC^OiCOt-^COtOiO.-l'^iOOO 



CO-^i-t-rtH O"^ <M '^i-H 



■^ t^ -^ (N 1-1 lO iM CO to 



*s^i{0 '^^TSPH 



C^OT-HOOCO'^M-^CCI>-COI>.b-'^'^iOOO'^COOiiO'^i— I C%CO 



'Onqof^PT^H 



COCOiO(N(N05(MC^CD'— im(Nt^G0050iOcO?DcDO.-liOCOiM 
C^CO»H(M MCO CO iO>— I 00-^00.— I OC^i-H»OlO 



■seui'Gi; 'uJnqeei^ 



iOiOOOOOOC^iO'*.-tt>CDCOiOiOOt^"^CSOOOOOlCOa> 



C^ t- T-H CN tH O CO C*? ■* T-H 



■^ (M -^CO 



'£ uqoi: 'iieqB^ 



»0 !>. -«t* !>. (N ■'*OC<ia> • OS C^ C^ CO P CN CO CO CO Oi (N .-I Oi 00 



*f 'SB£ 'SJOUUOO 



COOiCOOOOOOaJ-^Ht^i— ii-Hr^(M(M(Nr^OC^OO«CNOOCOi-iC 
CO rl T-H CS t^ -^ lO (N CO 1-H i-H t^ 00 CO -^ T-4 ,-H -;}* I 



•AV "AV. '^eSBO 



t-->-^OC0OiMi— l(OI>-T— liOOCTJCOQiiOC^'— (COCOOiOOOiO 



CO(M.-(C^ 1-1 lO t-CS-^ 



rl 00 O .-< T-H - 



'e^uojv: 'uosuaa: 



CO»OOOC^rdT-H'<t"C<H>'»i*COCOiOOCO(N'*05GO^iOTtiiOC5' 



COCO i-*i-H 05T-H (M 



4 i-H 1-t O Oy3 T-H o 



"Z nqof 'ss9[j£'Bg: 



c^^O'i^Tt^oc^asco^ocDTt<^0(^^lO(NlO<^^c^^'aDaJ■FH-<:J^(^^lOC<l 

CO i-( i-H 05 »0 lO criN 1-H OiOOO 00 *-HiO'<5H 



•SI9M 'nosj9pny 



1-H Ol a> COt^i-H T^t^t^Ni-IC^CDlOlO-^OCOi-HlOO'-H-^OSi-HO 



(M 1-Hi-H '^OO lOC^COr^ 



-OCO tH (M 



'II'GQ *'Biojy 



•OOiOrfC^i-HiOC^ •OSMiC-l.-HCOOJ^'^COOOCOi-Hr-iOO 



•pi •£ 'j9nuBX 



•^ 'SBj; 'u'eai3t09H 



*^ trqoj; '9U99JO 



1-HOi— lOO-«J^COCO»-HOOOiCDOTt<OOC005i-Hl005"^GOCOOSiOt^ 
•^ (M T-l M 1-4 i£> »0 T-H IX) CS i-H lO CD I>- 1-H -^ -^ t— 



i-HiOi-Hcor^t-Hcoorh'^ioiooii-Hooos.-HaicoOi-HTjHOi-H-'** 



i-H TJH -^ 1-H C<» 1— i M to C^ 1-1 CO 



JlMcOi-Hi-HTtlCvl.-H-ct*'^ 



^^-c^'*^-H -coos ■ -^ t-h oo (M --i -^ cm oo o -rt^ os t^ .-h i-h o »o 



■ CO cq '(M 



CN i-H 1-H 



•S9ni'B£ inBllSI92[0TjVV 



iOOcOi-HCO»OiOCOOiCOOOCD-^i-HCOt^CDcD>-HCOr-C^C0050 
■^ ,-1 T-H (N 1-H lO N lO 1— 1 1-H -^ O ^ C^ CM Oi 1-H <N 00 



•y 's-Giio 'J9zjng 



00»OI>-i0C003THOc0i-H':0"^(Mi-H0i'OC0l>-00t^Oc0O0S»0 
CO "O Cq CO Tfi C^ !>■ CM "^ W i-H CO O Oi .-H CM i-H lO CO 



*AS.OIJOJ\[ BU9T: 'STAV9'1 



1— I CD • Cq 'COCO ' "■*! 00 lO lO • lO O ■ r-1 T-H o 



-^CO -CM 



Cq ■ i-\y-i 



2§ 

O d; ^^ C ^ S ^ 03 c;^ ^ -f^ C'i S M 



:22 

)00 



ofi 






Mtsj^H^SdnPH 



158 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 












•2^ 



S 



Q 

•i^ 



^^ 



o" 



•e^^Seioa: jo; 9:joa ib^ox 



■-H IN 05 00 00 ^- -<t< O rH t^ 



Mi 

MA- 



SS 

0-2 



>>-; 



<0 



s " a 



•Sniie^.^'EOg 



■ON 



N ' t- CO "*! to i-H CO 'O 



!-*CO^t~00rf-*O4^00 



■S9A 



1-1 rH i^ CO 



^ CO COOO T-H Ol 



i-Hi-l (M ,-1 -H 



'%^M. 



t~->-ICO(N.-<OOOOWCO(NCO 
CO 00 t-H i-H C^ ■* t>. 



■Aia 



ooico^ooooosooiooor^ 

i-H T-H CO Oi CO ■<** rH >0 Oi 



•a '090 'piepoqos 



oocqi-Hoococor*t-»o»o-^ 

CO lO »0 C5 CO 



•g '090 'itqsSrio 



■^ lO • 00 ^H ■* »0 (N '^ (N Oi 
•OOt^OCOC^OO lO 



•H mioj: 'qqoo 



COOCOiOC<ICO(Nr^»-H(NCO 
fl (M ■* t^ IM (M CD 



"0 'Pa 'l-mqiJnH 



03 00C0 00-*(M-*C0O.-lt^ 
■* t-- 00 rl i-H t-< IM 



■g J9;9<I '£\I'B3_ 



OJOJrtOiO^OOOOOt^ 
lMt~IM'*r-IOOr-(l> 



"19^9(1 '3[onnjooop{ 



os'<)<iomoococot^OTt<t^ 

Tf t-- CD CO i-l !>. 00 



•SBqo 'SmspH 



CO (N • CD 05 CO C^ CO '^ C^ (N 
.-I "IN .H IN tH CO 



•O uqof 'pi9H 



OJ-^COIOi-ICOCOOtJHCDCO 
COOIOIN MOO CO 



■S9raBj; 'nJTiq99i^g: 



O5(NC0t^lOO500i-ICOC^CO 
to 05 »0 C^ i-H 00 o 



•j; mioj; 'jSgq^^ 



iO lO • lO lO ^ 00 CO 03 f-H »o 



•jl 'SBf 'sjounoo 



"M 'JA '^esBO 



coiocooomt^ioiN 

■* CO (N IN >-H CO t>. 



ir~i-i . lO CO ■* i-i o> Tj* r- ■* 

t^ CD <N ■* i-H 05 t^ 



•9!(U0H 'lI0SU9a 



CO C<l CO CO 00 i-IO ■*■*-*■* 
lO t> l> T-l i-H iO tH 



"2 xrqof 'ssgil^g 



t>- CD • IN -^ lOOOO CO CD OS 
lO to i-H CO t^ -^ 



•SI9N 'uosJ9pnv 



"IJ'BO '■Bioiy 



■y^ •£ 'i9nnBX 



0505t^Ttl-«^-^-^iO 
■^ "* i-H IN »-H CO -^ 



coo3cocoi-ii-ii-ir^ 

Cil rt rt iH IN 



CO • CO Ol C35 CO CD Cq lO •* 

■I CO ocot-h 00 r^ 



•a; 's-Bi; 'u'Eni3[09H 



OCOCOCO^"rt1C^OOIN*nJH05 
1-H •'^ 00 CO CO T-H O to 



• j[ UqOj; '9U99I£) 



'IN • lO lO 05 lO "'^ 05 1— I CO 



•sgraBf 'uiBqsi92[0ijVi 



COO^COOOC^NOOCOiOOi 



'V 'SBqo 'jazing 



•AVOJIOH Bnaq 'STAi9T; 



10rHCO^COTj<(NCDr-(lO.-l 

cq o to r* c^ o th 



O ■ t^ 00 1— I •coo -to i VH 
•H . IN rt • T-H ' ■■ 



f3 ft 









WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



159 



•aijBSaiap joj a^fOA i^jox 



«Doooo^coooosc^05'X-*oii-icoa^(Moot^'^u:» 



COr^'-Ht^T-H-^TtiCOCD'' 



C^i-ii-HO'*' o 



3nTJ8^:;B0g 



;-H I 



3^ 



•ON 



^ c<i (>» to CO cs i-< Tj< (M ^ o CO i-H lo -^ ' TP cq N rH CO 



•saA 






•^•la 



CO 05 o- 00 1— I CO lo CO r^ -^ ' lO CO o r- 1 ci i-H o t^ 00 

■^ :0 '^ T-H Cq CO 05 lO CD ■ .— I TP T-t I— I lO Cq 



•*9jVV 



>-H "»J^ c<i t-i rH r^ a^ r^ t— t 's* i-h c^i-h 



■a nqoj: 'aosHAi. 



CN (N 1-H rp t-H CD CO 



■£ -M. 'a^i-OH 



05 03 O^ O^ "* O CO CC O C^ ■ Ot^ to (M 00 (MCO 05CC 
^^ 1-1 (M CO(Mi-l irt rt 



■W CO i-H O (M 



•i^gnjBg; 'jJanqjo 



•^ ^^ C^ • lO 00 I— 1 1^ CO CN TT -^ ^ 05 C^ Tf 00 -^ o o t^ 
IM«^ -CO T-i W 00 to .-t T-H 



® 03 

c ® 



•a 'oao 'Piauoqos 



T-) Cii-t (M OS ■ -^00 



OJOiiO^rH '(MC^CO 



•g -090 '^qsSuo 



tOCOOOOO'*9^(NOCDOtOOCOT-tcO(NOOi-II^-^r^Cq 



to t^ to T-t (N CO 00 C 



T-tiOCO dr-lT-ltOCt 



•H nqof 'qqoo 



iO^»-H:DiOl>-OfXicD * -C^C- • 'i-Hi-HOOC^ 



*9^TK 'Sunoj^ 



•K "X 'P99H 



•y JoijOTA 'nannr 



OS » 05 t-* OS C<I -^ 

T-l . (M -^ O TP 



OiOit^^TPCOcOiOOS 



OOOOt^(MOI>- ■ t-- rH c^ '(MCO'^OOtO 

t-i.-iT-Hcoc^o< ^ 



C<IQO •cOO'-HCOiMOr-CO '(M"^i-H 'C^"^l>.!© 



•q: 'SBito 'sanof 



Cqt^OsO'Hi— Ii-(cOtJ<-^o •lOi— lOir^T-lb-cOOt-^ 

(MCO«-lCO c^csiocooo 



•J -sBf '^i^a 



■^C<|CDC<ICOOO'^CO'— ICOcO'^OC^OOOOOOOiO^iOO 

CO lo CO (N c<i cq 1-H 00 i-h lo co .— i .-< lo i-t 



'\Vld 'hbStijoo 



TficOO • 00 OS 00 O CD r^ '<*< CO Oi 00 CO tP (M Tt* CO CD i-H 



rH -^ -CO CqcqOOli-H 



"<?^ (N 1-H 1-t i-H Tjs (M 



'H Q^'BN: 'sqmooo 



■^t—i-HOCDOOOOiOiOi— It— (■^'':t<«-<-^0OcDI^I>-O5 
"<** l>- i-H CD (MC^JOOOO i-t TT Cq i-l i-H CM 



'jCpuy 'uosjapuy 



•y -y 'natIV 



»-C(Jii-HCO"**<Cqr-HOSCO»C-*OiO-*(M(MCO'*i-'». 

CO ■^ th I— ( I— 1 1— I cq CO CO 1— I cq cq T 



M^OiNi—liOOCqcOCiiOrtHi— iC^OO'^^'^TticOt-^O 

N CD 1-H cq i-H cq (M (M "^ cq .-( iM cq i-h ^ r-. cq 



•uqof '^[OBqpTmg 



OcD-^iCCqcOTfCOcDOO 
CO '^ T-l "JO CO CO 



■^ m^JBpf 'trejoj^ 



co-^coiocoi-Ht^cooocDco ■cqoco'^cDcqr^co'* 

Cq CO TP rH Cq CO (M CD C^ ■ rH .-I 



OSOit^COOCO(NI>-£-- 



•soqx uq'BOOK 



CO lO "0 i-H lO ». 



rHCO Oq > ^ 00 t^OO 



cooiu^-^-^cit^-^cqcDcoosr^oo 



•y 'SBf 'ra'eqsj95[0TjV\_ 



»— (c^Ttit^ooc^coo5i>-ai 



"^ CD CO T-i CO CO CO CO CO • --H c^ I— ( rH j-H -f cq 



■<t--l>.cDt--OCOOiC^ 



•y -s^qo 'jazps 



i-Hi-HiO-^OOcOOO-rt^Oi'— lOi-^iO'^COCOiOt-'^'^Cq 

cq "* CO i-H 00 o r^ cd .-h tt ci 



'MOjjopf Buaq; *sm8T; 



Tji lO OS ■ >o 



d d 

^ cqco > ri— '^ 
■ ■ -'r^ S <!> <i^ 

O O OK [1; 03 C3 



ftp. 
WW 



it;3 ©-S e-2 s ? fl § §"c2ga;§ §5 g^^ 



OJ o o o o c 



wooooQMM^2;?;Sp:;»Sfe5^P^^ 



160 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



ei^ESepa Joj 9J0A le^ox 



y-i OiOi-^C^ C<l t^ ft CO C^ !;0 t^ 00 05 C^ ^ t^ O 00 *H TJH O Ut) C<l CO ^ I 
COOO "3CO 1-4 f-^ r-i i-( »-l 00 t-l N i-H 03 TJi 00 r-l »0 C<l IC CO W i-i -^ C 






^ 2 



g 



't?. 



^ 



•§nU9}lE0g 






^^" 



2g 



■ON 



OO^NOSUi C<) 'MN 'Orf 



■soA 



OS 00 CO "^ 0> . - 



(McDco ■ •i-H'^i-tW 



■*0M 



O'^TPOOlft 05»H • i-H lO N i-H Tti lO Cq. 00 CD i-H lO C^ »H OS '*f CO C^ 00 lO 



CO CO c^ ■^ 



i-l COi-ICq COrHi-H ,-tr-4»-li-t 



•Asa 



2SrS"^i51?S WcOf-^-^iOfHt^^i-H iOOSOOa)CONCqO.OO'«*'CDCOCi 
' * ' ^ *^ CO '"I CO »H ^-l CO 'H 



C^lC OOlO 



1— t 1-t lO ^-1 lO r-4 CD 



■pa pooM 



"^COCOt-H^H cdn-^ 



COCOO0i-H-«^COt^O5O5U^U0 



'a -SBf 'nosijAv 



N2ICONOJ c4vc4eQcooooorar-<-<ti<-i'TKU9iQ.H(Mosdaoeoo<N> 



'H ■soqx 'Je^ief 



Sm !oS '"''"''^ ji-iN ; jr-iNNto ; |i-( 'r-oo 'Oi-hoj 



'0 sof 'jeSuTieia 



coco '(NO 



■COCCiHi-KON-^NOSIOOS • 'COCOt^tHTJi ■OiO> 



fl g 



'0 ■soqj, 'eoPd: 



CD u:i 'OlO CD rH 1-i W IC 05 CO CC CO Oi CO kO -^ CO 00 05 -^ CO i-< OS 00 -^ 
f-1 CS • O t^ 1-H CO CO ^ r-l IH rH 



■raiof 'nooN 



rH ■<** 1-4 Oi 05 CO 00 -^ »-t N lO O CO »0 O CO W* Cfl W ^ -H CD Cfl .-t CO -^ 



CO-H OOi-H 



rt-HN cOrHr-l -H r-l>-l i-( i-l 



•ijdesoj; '^■Eiinpj; 



OOOOIOOTJ4 1/5© 'fH • 00 00 -^ I>- CD 03 CO CO ' i-H W3 1-< iH O "^ CO CO 



Cil--I OO ^ 



"SBijo 'nraiiBOOj^ 



•<n IM CO cq 



<M rH >H 



O^iOC^IC^N ^ CO • CO lO 00 t* CO OS 00 CO N 00 CO O CO CO CO t^ 'S' CO CO 

1— I cq r* CO . ^ — ■. ^ . — 



n"3. 'Je^nnH 



Oi-M -Osr^ -HCOCqCq-HCOCO '■"^t^CO--l 'iHOOffqCiOS-HCOCOW' 



NN 'CMOO 



IflrHr-l • --1 



"H ■soqx 'pnBitOH 



OSOWCDb- lO-MNCOOSOCOJNUicONOOrltini-fOSeON I>OS1Mt>» 
rH CO OOCD 1-1 »Oi-4 TJ< -H CO C5 CS 



d '^M. '^ineH 



T ■M 'jStosh 



a: ••a'-ieuSeH 



"H 's^qo '^^a 



•g 3[nBij 'nonuBo 



•Tiqo[ 'uBuoa 



•^ -g 'UBUIJSO 



'M 'onj: '9mBJj[ 



•oeo 'Aqioocl 



a 'ooQ 'piegoqog 



'a '090 'j£qsgu£) 



H 'onf 'qqoo 



•y 'SBf 'ra'BttSJ93[0TjV\. 



•y 'SBIIO 'i9zxng 



■jAouoyi ■BU9T: 'sijtt9q 



NCOt-HOSO -H»OCO 

(M-* O— I 



■<J< 'CO 'COCDt- "<T'COi-tC1Cq-H -COCO 



OS CO cq CO t- r-i • CO 1— ( tH t^ -H • '00 ' -H »H -H t-H CO I> O C<l 'COO 



-H CO oom 



^Hcqi-foooo cq CD »o cq cq c*i CO -coc^iosci-H ' -h cq »-4 lo -^f c<i co p^ 



OS CO 'rH 



t^ -H CO 'J' 1-1 t~ 00 ■* t-i ^ "O" cq "o cq CO -1 CD CO — iH CO 00 o ■* cq th o 



cq CO 00^ 



co-H cqr-icocqcq 



■^COr-trf-H 1-H O O »0 CO CD cq C^ '^ cq OS 00 CO CD CO CO CO -H -^ lO CO CO 






t^lO-H COU5 
cq rHCD 



lO'is^cot-^coco^ocqas^^oocoososi-i^i^r^o 



cqo"9<iocq coosco 

coco CO t^ 



OS • 1-4 00 00 cq 1*^ cq • -^ t>- oo uo ^ r^ co oo 



OI>COCDt^OSOOCO 



i-ico-^cocq oscq 'cqcococo > -h -h lo »o -h 
-H i-H t^05 ■ Tj< ' cq CO 



T-(OCOOOOO -^ iH Tj* N -^ -^ cq CO 1-4 lO t^ '1*' rH 'UtlCOUS^tO ••^u^ 

cq cq CO "^ . "^ cq oo co 



r-coQO'«<fOcot~o 



"3cocOT)ios»HOcq 



cq 1-H CO CO cq c^ co u? '•J^ co i^ t-* ^ c^ co tc co t- co os t^ cq co rn ^ us *'*' 



CD^H-Ht-OJ COOO-H 'C50CD ■ OS 00 "5 i-l Cq CI t^ CO t- -^ N 00 OO O 



-Hcq Qoo 



t-rHCO cq -H 



lOocococD 00 OS OS rH 00 cq o lo 00 1-4 00 o iH th t^ CO CO -H ic CD CO cq 



Ttico 00-* 



( cq Oi-Hir cqiHrico i-i cq 



UDt^iJ^-HiiS -tji 1^1 rH lO i:}4 kO vo CO CD t^ O O t^ t^ cq 1-1 O -^ CO t^ -cr c- 

I-IU3 os'^ 1-4 ia< 40 cq CO -^-hco—h-h cq 



•^ f-< • 'Oscq ' lit) -(ji CD t^ cq ■ cq "^ '-^ '»-(oo 

CO 1-1 '1-1 ■ 



--4cq .So 



fip^ 



tuO M • • ^ 03 P 



g o fl I 
,i3fl c«': 
2 2 fir 



•<«' 






■ -S 'JO ■ . « • 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



161 



CQOOOOICO 



r-t rr< i-t 



OOCO-»'*CO CM i-( .-I rr TO r- "O T-1 1-1 .-1 CO i-H IN 00 lO <N 1-H Ol 



CCCOi-C* 03 



r» -cwco . «-H CO 



<i-ie<3CM •i-llMr-ilN ■ 1 >-l 



N »-H CO CO oo 



(M Oi CM »C CO CD O t^ ' O 00 05 CD TJ< T-H CO CO I> 00 iO i-H O 03 O )»-( 



lO OtP f-H CM CM 



■* CM lO I^ .-I 1-1 tH CM 1-1 CO 00 1-1 T-. 



CS*-l CM CO CM 
CO CM>0 



O 0> CM »0 rH "3' CO O *^ 00 0> O »0 !>• i-t CO CO CO CO ^H CO OO ^ 
CM CO 1-1 CO 1-1 1-1 CM i-t CO rji lO 



ooiiocq CM 

H" CM CO t^ 



i-i-^i-(i-ICOCOOOt^T-II:^CMCM030CO-*t^-^C^C003COCSCM 
COOOCOt^CM i-t i-(CMlOr^i-l -^ CM 1-1 CO r^ 1-1 1-1 



CO USUI CO CO 
CMi-l T-li-( 



CO fH 1^ coco -W CO 



<»Oi-^^i-^TlicOt^lOCMlOr^cOCM 



CMWCOCOO CD O i-t CO t^ OC CO • CO CO 00 i-i is* O CM • i-l CO -^ CO CO CO Wi i-I 



COOS'* in CO 



COOOCOlVr-1 ■ t-t rH ID CO ■* CM r-H • Id • i-H CM i-l C<» ■* Oi O CO |i-4 



OCOi-H 05»n 
CMrH iH CO 



COOOtD03030>t»i-ICD»OCOOiOm-^COCOOi-)i9<COr^CO»0 

oocoi-1'* CO i-Hoo 1-1 i-in""*" 



CMi-l CDiOt^ 
1-1 CM i-t-cti 



O00OO-* 
OsCM^CMtH 



lCCO''Jl»OI>-»Oi-(COt^'*-*lOW3-*C000t^O5 



T-l lO 1-1 »0 CO 



Tln-1 T-ICM 1-1 C^ 1-1 



OOOQiJ'OOOO • 00 O t* W TJ1 I:^ lO C^ CO 



C^lOTTinoO'^i-ICM 



O5 00C<lU5-»C 
>-li-l CMCO 



lOoimc^cMiocDTPiooocRmf 



OO CM T-l VO 



i-IOOOOr-IOOCOCqoO 



«5i-i .coo 



lOCMCO»OlO -1-1 " •<*< ^ CO CD CO i-t 1-t '0300 • iH Oi ■* i-4 CO 
OO'^i-li-l'i-l" COCO ■ — 



■^^ CO CD CO CO 
CM r-lCO 



^i03i-i(NtJiI>^I:^OOCOCOOCOOOOO»-4^0'*CO»OCO-^ 
OOCMi-llO CO^Hi-lO 1-1 1-4 ■* OO 



ooio ■ o-*** 



CDCDOSw:)'* • ^H ■ Tti 1-H O i-< i-( (M CO CM CO i-l • CM O lO C<I CO 



i-li-l OOi-l 1-1 11-1 



coTpiocMm 

1-1 COi-< 1-1 



C0CMO3IM 'COCMCOCD • CO CM 03 K5 CM 



WOCMXSO 



CO t^ CI i-i »iO 



f-4 i-i CO CO^I C<l 



CD i-i < i-irf <yiai 



m-'j^i-it^co'^ioio 



00 03 10 Oit^ 
tH iH CMTJi 



C0COO3'*eM • CO t~ CO ■>!< T-( 1-1 -* CM i« 'OOOOl 
C^CM »Oi-l ^ 



■^ r^CMiOl:^ 



CO m »0 lO 03 t* in • CD 00 -1 1^ »C 1-t O i-( 03 lO CM 



OOCOi-l(M 



CO<NCO00 ^ 1-1 CM 



030i-(CMCO 
1-1 !-!•* 



t^ -1 00 pa CM 00 N 

OCM i-liH 



t^ CO -^ CM 1-1 



CD CO ■ OCO 



OO lO CM ■* 1*1 



Ort 'i-lCO 
1-1 CO •!-( CO 



Oicct^^ a 



COCDCMW3 iCOQOC^Tji iiOCOOi • i-l CO CM lO 



^lO t^ 03i-t 



OCOiOOOCD •■<f'*CO ' C<> ■* O 1-1 CO ■* CD ^ • rH t^ CO lO CM 
— ■ — CO 1-1 1-t ii-l t^ 



CM CO 1-1 ■'tl CO 



03 CO t- Tfi OS O 00 00 • lO ■* CO 1-1 CM CO 1-1 03 'COi-IOCMCM 

r- ^1 — — 



Or~ 'CMO 
CMCM 'CM>0 



CO CM CO t^ 00 05 CO ■ -Tt^ "<*< 03 O »0 O 03 ^ ■* ^ ^H CO CM t^ 1J1 CO 



CO 1-1 CM 03 1-1 



1-1 inoii-ii-( 



00 cor- CO CD 

1-lC<t 1-1 Tt< 



OCOC<1(MOO 
OOtP i-l COi-l 



»n c<) < t^ CO CO tn CO CO 1-1 CO 00 03 1-( 00 03 w3 1-1 

■*Tti 1-1 iHi-H C<l 



cocomcM t^ 

CM-* CMCO 



t-coi-i-wr- iin t- o >n N >o 00 1- 1-t lO CD CO t^ 1-1 CM CM t~ 03 



CO-*i-IOOi-" 



1-1 i-lioio 



1-t lO CD CO t^ 1-1 ( 
1-1 iiCM i-tc 



■*i-i eo-*co 

CMiH coco 



CD-HOO— O:03t-C<(C0CDCOCOCO03CM 
t^i^i-t»0 1-1 COi-11-100 



CO CO ■* 1-t t-om 



COt-COOO t- ii-li-l 



COi-f* 11-1 



CO-* ilOi-lCMCOCM I 00 



c3 03 O 



O c3 

c3 1-. 03 ® •'3 

O "*- M .H ^ ^ • ..^ . a-2 "S 03 • . 



a 3 M 
a OS 



03 „■ 

S-p ® oiija o 



13289—17- 



-11 



162 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



■S-o 



i. 


o 


^^ 




'^ 






-<=; 


r*- 




^ 


3 


<» 


« 


rC 








> 


o 




-« 


<yi 




t. 


^S£ 


fO 


O, 




S 


g 


s 



^t^. 



s 



■£3 ^ 



tf a 



9}b39I9p ioj a:jOA ib;ox 






"Snue^^Bog 



■*9M 



• t-t • O C^ l-H i-H 1— t rH Tt* »-t <N -^ CO CC CC O O ^H 05 CD -^ CO TI- 00 (N 
■ ■^■-1 tH ,-1 (Mw CO,-IC0 (M r-(CO 



■■^la 



»OC^-«*'TPOr-HlOt^OcDC30lO-<:Jic£>OSt-i-^CC>»-tOS'V'^COOt^ai 
(M l^rtNrl 1-ICO.-1 Cq ICI (N O IM 00 1-1 CT CS| 03 



■ON 



•1-HCOO '(NIM 



O CO tH OS lO ' 03 -1^ O "* t-H • I-* 1-H 50 03 rH 



<N • 1-1 ■ •i-l>-H 1-1 .-H 



■S9A 



•J9:j9d; 'irajg 



■ rt rl 1-1 CO lO i-(i-l -NM iTPtO^CO ilN 



'(Ni-I icDt-i-l 



'H 'n 'mq-es 



rHt^COC^CO -CO • iH U5 C5 IC CO lO CO O CO (N • tO CO i-l »0 Oi CO t 
' C<l 1— ( TJi c<i ■ CO 



"H 'H 'ssoa 



C^ CO ' i-t CO CO' CO 



■J9:j9J 'II9SU9J; 



•SIBI 'j[TAn9JS9jVi 



Cq CCl '(M CO t^OO^HO COCOi-l 'TPCOW 

1-1 'i-ico 1-icOi-i^ - ■ — 



oocococot^i-tioc^cot^cocoiOi— lOi— ti-HoocOt-ii-iast^ 

<M r-1 (N 1-1 iO CO C^ 



»-( • CO i-l 1-1 (M r-( 1 CO CO (N rji 00 -^ lO t^ CO lO C^ ■ r-1 • CO C^ i-t 



•ruEo: 'J9jsq9A\. 



^ 00 1-1 1^ CO C^ 1-^ 03 W O CO ■ O -^ Oi O I> t* 1-t CO TJi Tji 



■V *Ai 'IBUJA 



1-1 iC^S 'i-li-i ■ 00 00 1-1 i-l Cq TT 1-1 O Tji 00 iCQi-li-t ii-105C<l 
•i-< • ■ 1-1 00 (M • 



"S '0 'Along 



i-iO • 00 CO i-l CO CO 1-1 00 IM Cd CO •* •* CO O O CO 1-1 CI 1-1 -W O -* OI 
"^■'^ i-1*-( COrHT-lNTti 1— I I— (Th^H 



■Aigjpnv 'pnBiiejji 



COCOOO t^^i-l 



'WO 'wev[Sviuoyi 






coco-^cor^ot^coooOTji 



(M '1-1 -iji 1-1 



■■^Oi3iiOCOlMcO(Mt^C<l'^t*i-H 



'Ml ■090 'J93p9q; 



'K'y '9J0S113 



•AV "090 '^9nH 



CO 1-1 i-l CO 1-1 1-1 (N i-( 'COt^OINlNUScO ' O OR 



i-l CO 1* O W 00 00 CO "5 CO CO CO »0 TjlUi lOJOOCO 
"5 1-1 CO COi-l CO C35 • 1-1 



• Tfico • eo t- 1-1 ■* 10 1-1 CO T»i r^ CO • m i-i .h i-i i-i co 



•0 "I 'SS9H 



COOO-^COCOCOt^COT-lCOOi»'iOCOIr^lCi-IC^C>C^t^COIOCOW3i-t 



CO r-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 CO 



10 1-1 lO 1-1 1-1 



■3 90r 'n99I0 ! 



CO iCR-ai^^ 



•AV nqor 'nana 



COi-c 11 'i-l 



•tH t-i-l 1-1 lO) 1-1 



■uti 1-1 ilOCOTJiCO • O 05 -^ ^ CO 00 CO CO C<I O i-( 1-1 Oi rr 1-1 CO t^ CO 



cq 1-1 00 CO 1-1 1-1 i-ii-< 



•a-a'sunioo 



cocot^oo-^ ■ Oi 1 10 00 CO CO r^ C5 00 ■* CO CO 1-1 10 1-t CO o 00 CO 

C<» 00 iH 1-1 1-1 CO 



•X -jv^ 'smna 



TtiCOi1*COI:^COCSCOi-li-lCOlCOa3T!iCOi-1COCOCO'<JiiCW3COOCO 

Oi-i 1-1 iHth co-u" t^coio T-ico e«r~ 



"0 'z 'u^9a 



■ 00 icoi-i cqco 



1 1-1 03 1-1 lO CO -"Ji CO >0 0> CO icOCdi-l icOi-l 



•nea 'pn^iagqatig 



•<jii— i-^t^ioo5cot^i-icoiococor^osmoi-ioocqi— ii-iict^co»o 
1-1 05 i-(CO 1-1 e^ I-l CO CO CO 1-1 ira 



•y "soqx 'oBMOOOK 



coco lOCOCOOSCO 1 TT 1-1 1-1 CO CO "* O CO »0 CvJ IC OS CD 1-1 Cfl o -^ 



•OOi-l 1-1 



•UBa '9qB00H 



a ■ogo 'pi9poqos 



•g_ -OQQ 'S.qs2uQ 



•Hnqof'qqoo 



•SB£ 'raBqsjeJLOiA^ 



"V ■SBqo 'I9zins 



■Aoijoyi BngT; 'sTAi9i 



00 ■OOCO'J"* 



00 111 CO 03 ^ o> 10 



1-1 COCq OS CO 1-lCO 



■w iM 1-1 00 1^ 00 ^ t^ t^ CO 'locq iiooseo 

1-I1-1 1-1 CD CO • • (M 



CO'«<rHCOCOrtt^i-l-9'lOCOOi-1COCOO 



1-1 •O' r-l t^ 1-1 CO 



CO 1-1 t>. 



COCO -COOSCSCOTti • Ir^ OS 10 CCl -^ 00 00 t^ CO lO CO O CD 'COC0»O 

coi-1 t^ t— iHCO -i-ieo 



1-1 •r~'«<o>co it-ooos ■ e^ rH 00 10 in 1-1 • i-i co Co lai tji oo t 

1 .-1 "3 1-1 rH ■ N 



COlCCOOOSOOTtiiJiCOcD-^COCOCOCOOSt^COOSCOOSCOCOOSt^CO 

OS rH 1-1 1-1 tH -^ CO CO IC t^ 



-iiiCOi-lOCOOCOOi-t»-IOSCOCO^HOOOO'^COi-1t^t^W3-^COOOOO 
CO 1-1 1-1 Cq CO coco CD CD 1-lCO C^ 1J1 



CO TJ1 CO • 110 coco 10 O OS OOCO OOCO iCOi-l 1 • CO 1-1 



3«oo6ooPftPWWWf"^^P^I»i|i»f^P^ 



^§1 



a3 Jii'" ' 



bc2^ el 






WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



163 



'*N^OiTt^osGccoccocooiCTluDl»c^lo^^^*05oocoC5c^coo(Nr^cNo^^^(^^fCcDo^H 



•^cDCsI dec lO -^ l-H 1-1 1-t r-* CO <M 00 rH rf 1-H »0 CO i-H <N i-H -^ O 



' --H lO i-H (M O i-H 



i^o>"* »ooo r 



■OO^-trHC^CDirtiT-liCCOiCiOi-iTPCsIr-iCCCD'^OOi-cCOOiOiMOOiOi-liO'^ 
•1-Hi-H c^ r-H 1-H i-HrH ^-^ ^ ^ (M 



oooocoecicot~^oooN05i-ic<icO"^ccooii-tcO'^i>i— ir*cocoT-(oioccioooc^a3TpTPcc co 



1 ,_| ,— I i-H Tjl CO 1-t T-t 1-t 00 C^ CO r-H CO .— t 



Cfl CO CO Tji (N i-l CO cs t>- 



AO CO r-1 • CO CS» ' iC t* CO 00 i-H CO • CO 1-t OS iC C^l ■^ CO CD O • Cfl CO r-i cO »-h CO lO CO i— I 



'-(Ot^ooooocoiOrHt--vCTrcoioiOi— icoo*^coTriooOi— icoioiooscooocoiocodiOi-i -* 
CO'**'*-! .-(CO coco .-1 1-1 cq c*^ c-^ i-i "^ 1-1 '^ ^rr i-h m <Mcc-«rc^ co ^h iM r^ i— i i^- 

1-i-^C^ ' rH CO 'CO ' f-l • CS CO 'f-* 'COW • '1-tt-CONW 'COiOCOt^ • -^ CO T-< lO i-l CO 



1-1 CO W <N IJD OS rH 00 Oi ^^ W T-l lO .H t^ i-H Oi • N CO • > ■<** CO N W lO OO lO IC CO (N U3 00 U5 lO (M 



00 1-1 O O l> CO 1^- -^ •OCOt-l'^ • '■*' CO 05 l>> N T-H '(Ji CO -^ O lO CO CO "* (N uO CO 00 



05 CN rH '1-1 tH 



4T-I03I CO T-tCO 



t^ CO Tt* ■ 1—1 1— I CO -co • T-1 ^ lO Tf' CO lO lO 1— I IC 



. r-t t* ,-1 C^ CS| 1— IC 00 Ofl 'CO 



O 1-1 ^ Tf '^ (N 



Oi CO 1-1 CO i-l Oi CO CQ • r-t (N 'T-lOC 



CO i-( 



OO'^i-t-'S^MCOiOCOOi 



OSOSC^Tt*I^-CO(MT-Hi-(C^«Tf*r-4 



■uO(NCOt^Oi 



00 (N T-1 lo ' CO CO !>• lo r^ oo 1— I Oi 1— I 

i-It-H . ^ ^ ^ 00 



<iOi-4Tji . • i-( . lO • O 1-1 00 CO CO CO 
• • • 1-H • 1-H lO 



• t-H Tf -^ lO lO • 1-1 CM 'i-lCQ 



lOCOCOcOt^lOCOlOCOCOlOWr-HOiC^CO 



,HO 1-li-t 



rH t^C^"^ 



(MCOCM-^ • '^ t^ 00 -rf GO I^- CD T-) 00 
CO "<r C^I 'i-liOINi-l 1-1 ,-tcD 



(NWCOiCOi'^C^OOTpiOCO'^^-lcOCSIOOiO-^i-iCflt^C^iOCqTjiiOcOOicDiOOSCOQOi-l • r-i 
-C^W C^CON .-Hi-HrHCfl rHi-<(NT-| — 



C<|iOOi •'^ COC^O >0^05 CD(N 



» Cq lO t^ CO 1-1 C9 CO 00 C^ 'CflC^I^-OOO « CO -* t-l I>- c^ 



'-**oa '-^ c^ 



C0»0 i-< lOOO 



t^CO '00 'i-HOCOi-t • 1-H (N 1-H CO 



<;0 t— lO 'CO 



lO CO T-i 'CO 



■'Ot-i-)^ -1-1 



<>» lO CO iC CO 05 r^ C3S 1-1 (M CO ■TjicO-" 



-f-l CO t^- CN CO CD C<1 W CS 'T-ir- 



'(Ni-iNCq 



■^ uo cq c^ CO ■ CO ■* t-- • ■'f CO cq C0 1-« o i i-i 



■Cij lo CO r^ u^ 00 ■ Oi 1-1 »o •<«' TP CO tc ic CO o CO • co i>- eo c^ t> cq r-i oo c^* tp i> oo r^ oo co r-i co 



^N rH r-t .<M 



r-H (N ^ 



»0 r- C^ 1— I 1— ( CO T-I I— ( C*^ • C<l 1— I m 1— ( CO (N lO • lO 1— I C^ lO O 1-t CO C^ N TP o 



<©OcOi-H ■ -^ lO O CO •<:?' CO CO '«J< ■ W QO 0> C^ Ol CO 1-1 00 t^ 1-1 Cq CO C^l UO t^ CO 'COiHCOCOOO 



OsosM-^cqr^cocqco-^coco' 



CO CO (N t>- CO CO Tfi 1-1 (N CO TJH CO l>- f^ CO 1— I lO CO CD I>- Cq lO i— l 
'-' ' t^ 1-H T-H »-l »-l Cq i-( CO lO Cq 



00 00 TT 00 r^ r 



<.-t ^TT -COtN 



1— lCqoOTpcD-^W5CDCOt~*lNiOrt^iOCOCOlCC<l^*<"TtiOiCOOCOi— iTPCDCOOO i-( 



CO .-iTHr-t i-ICO 1-i f-l{N 



CO .-^C^ 



• CO GO 1-1 CD Cq Cq CO -^ 1-1 i-t (M CO • -^ • (N « (M i-l • lO OO rH rH C^ « OS !>• Ol ■ i-c CD ID Tp CO »0 



Oi-HTtH'rt'iCT--tCDC0CqQ0iDC0'^"^r*i000I>-CqTPiDC000ir3iCcD01Oi0i0cD^-C00i0iTr ID 



1-1 N 1-1 lO Tf rH Tp Cq Cq CO"<3«COi-l T-i 



OiO'^'^oOi-! 'COCO • OS CO Tp 1-1 1-1 CO oa lO rH TT* cq urs ^H ira • I-I CO !>• cq Tji rH *o T-H r* r^ Tf' 

.-HM y-t -Ni-H ' 00 1-4 Cq • '"** (M (M 



^ OS 1-1 1— I 1-t O; (N 1-1 "^ « 'CO 



cOCOCOiOCOi-li-H>.cOC^lMC^»D»COOiOT-1000t^CO GO 



OOOiOCqcON'^i— lOOCOOSiDiO 'WCOTpi— i^-liOCO-^OCOiDcOr^t^rHOOcOOCDr^CO 



tHC<» CO rH 



Cq nHT-Hi-1 .-ICO 



^ rH<N CO 



OS'<IiCOlDCDi-HClTliONT-l'*i-H'*COOO'<**i-1COrHOOSCqoOCOTpiDt^iCCOt~--^>Dr^I>- lO 
1-i^ lO i-ii-l 1-1 ir-i-iiO (N 1-icO NCOW tP CO 



ot>-i-irHcoco^-tooioeqt^cqi-Hococoi-iiDi-ic<i-<*i>bi-ic 



' -^ 00 03 -^ ID 1— I N O O ^ '^ 
1-1 i-lC^ cq 



COQp00M'^»DCOCO00cOr--i— ii— i'^.-iiO00c00scDi-tOO0ScOI>-C0'Dt^i— i"^(N00COt^.-i C<l 



HC<I M(M CO 



cooo■^^^t^1— cc^r^^-.c*^»D^Dc^1— lOit-^coi— ii-icot^-^r--c^00i— i'j''*:*iooosor--iMt--i-ii>. m 

COC^ rHt- C^i-H 1-H C^ w<*i ,-1 CQ W I>- M !>■ tH i-H i-1 rp ^ 



COCDOS 'COCOCOCOOOC^i-HCOi-H '00 'TPCOt* • 'OStNi-lTPCNlOOOC^OCOCOCOCOCSICO o 






IpS-S :5 : : .' : ''S : : : : :4^' •• : :^il 
2 03 Ills °o g a^S^ fe.gS a^'-g g-s 8 c2 ^ftS,g^ s 






ftp. 
ftft„ 
o oir 

o o d 

o S.« 



164 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

certificate. 

United States of America, 

District if Columbia, ss 

This is to certify that the undersigned notary public in and for the District 
of Columbia was present on the 16th day of May, 1917, in office room No. 160 
in the House Office Building, Washington, D. C, and took the deposition there 
of James Wickersham, for the contestant in the contested election case of 
James Wickersham, contestant, v. Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, from the Terri- 
tory of Alaska ; that Jam3s Wickersham appeared for himself in his own proper 
person, and Charles A. Sulzer appeared personally and by his attorney, James T. 
Lloyd; that the said James Wickersham testified after having been first duly 
sworn by me, and was fully cross-examined by the contestee and his said at- 
torney ; that the said James Wickersham in addition to his testimony oflfered in 
evidence a number of documents all of which are attached to his deposition and 
marked as exhibits thereto ; that prefixed to his said deposition herewith is the 
original notice of contest filed by the said James Wickersham and served upon 
the said contestee, and also his reply and answer to the answer of the contestee 
herein; that the foregoing testimony is a full, true, and correct statement and 
copy of the testimony of the said James Wickersham signed by him and sub- 
scribed and sworn to before me, and the attached documents are the true and 
original documents filed by the said James Wickersham as exhibits and as a 
part of his testimony and deposition. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and my notarial seal at 
Washington, D. C, this 17th day of May, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Mull, 

Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia. 

My commission expires May 1, 1918. 

PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF CONTESTANT. 

Now on this 12th day of June, A. D. 1917, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the- 
forenoon, at the city hall in the town of Fairbanks, fourth division. Territory 
of Alaska, before me, Henry T. Ray, a notary public in and for the Territory of 
Alaska, duly commissioned and qualified, being the officer designated by James 
Wickersham, contestant, to take testimony of witnesses respecting the contested, 
election of said Charles A. Sulzer in the notice served upon said Sulzer, con- 
testee, by said Wickersham, contestant, on the 25th day of May, A. D. 1917, and 
being the time and place specified in said notice, for the taking of depositions 
or testimony of witnesses respecting said contested election of said Charles A. 
Sulzer, contestee aforesaid, there appeared Robert Loghry, a witness duly and 
regularly subpoenaed by writ of subpoena issued by me on the 29th day of 
May, A. D. 1917 (which subpoena with the proof of service thereof is hereto 
attached and made a part hereof). 

At this time Cecil H. Clegg, Esq., and John A. Clark, Esq., appeared and 
offered written objection to the proceedings herein and the taking of testimonj^ 
stating that they represented Mr. Sulzer; upon request being made by me to 
show proper authority from Mr. Sulzer to represent him as attorneys, Mr. Clark 
stated that they acted under authority and appointment of the Democratic 
divisional committee, which committee had been requested by Mr. Sulzer to 
employ competent counsel to represent him at this hearing, and that he, Clark, 
would produce the telegram or an authenticated copy thereof as soon as the 
same could be obtained. Relying upon the statement of Mr. Clark the written 
objections were accepted, pending the production of the telegram from Mr. 
Sulzer, or copy thereof, and thereupon Robert Loghry was called and asked to 
be sworn and testify as a witness. Mr. Loghry refused to be sworn and refused 
to testify as requested, stating that he had been directed by his superior officer. 
First Lieut. M. H. Faust, stationed at Valdez, Alaska, not to be sworn or to 
give testimony in this proceeding unless the officer before whom the depositions 
were to be taken showed proper authority so to do under chapter 8, Revised 
Statutes of the United States, 1878. 

I thereupon read to the witness Loghry the telegram dated at Washington, 
D. C, May 25-26, 1917, signed by James Wickersham, designating Henry T. 
Ray, notary public for Alaska, to take depositions in behalf of said Wickersham 
in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, in the contest proceedings aforesaid, and 
also read to said Loghry section 116 of chapter 8, Revised Statutes of the 
United States, prescribing penalty for failure of witnesses to attend or testify^ 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEK. 165 

and on further demand being made upon said Loghry to be sworn and testify 
lie refused so to do for reasons above stated. 

Adjournment was then talien until 1 o'clocls p. m. 

Now at 1 o'clock p. m., Cecil H. Clegg, Esq., being present, appeared James 
G. Coleman. Durwood M. Hocker, William A. Kirby, James E. Pegues, Austin 
Li. Foster, Thomas G. Griffin, Harry Shutts, Raphael Myerson, Frank R. Moore, 
and Charles Agnetti. witnesses subpoenaed herein, and each being requested 
by me to be sworn and testify, each and all refused so to do, stating as grounds 
for refusal that they were acting under orders from their superior officer, said 
First Lieutenant M. H. Faust aforesaid. 

All witnesses were at this time excused until Thursday, June 14, 1917, at 
1 o'clock in the afternoon. 

At this time I made demand upon Cecil H. Clegg to produce the telegram 
authorizing him and said John A. Clark to appear and act for said Sulzer, and 
said Clegg then and there refused so to do, stating that he had been employed 
by the Democratic divisional committee to represent said Sulzer, the contestee, 
stating further : " I am a practicing attorney ; I have seen no authority which 
is in their (the committee's) possession from Mr. Sulzer and therefore I do not 
feel it necessary to furnish you with any express authority direct from Mr. 
Sulzer." 

Whereupon Mr. Clegg presented the following letter : 

E. W. Griffin, Chairman. Thos. A. McGowau, Vice Chairman. 

F. W. Whitely, Secretary. 

DEJIOCKATIC DIVISIONAL COMMITTEE, EOUETH DIVISION. 

Divisional Committer : 
E. W. Griffin, Thos. A. McGowan, 
W. F. Whitely, F. L. Jewett, 
H. R. Wallace, C. G. Geraghty, 
H. J. Atwell. 

Faikbanks, Alaska, , 191 — . 

To wlioin, it may concern: 

This is to certify that under, and by virtue of, direct authorization from the 
Hon. Charles A. Sulzer, we hereby appoint, and designate, John A. Clark, Esq., 
and Cecil H. Clegg, Esq., to represent the said Hon. Charles A. Sulzer at the 
Delegate contest, held in Fairbanks on the 12th day of June, 1917, and until 
the same is completed. 

Dated at Fairbanks, Alaska, this 12th day of June, 1917. 

W. G. Cassels, 
Chairman Democratic Divisional Committee. 

I thereupon served written notice upon W. G. Cassels. whose signature ap- 
peared to the foregoing letter, in words and figures following: 

Fairbanks, Alaska, June 12, 1917. 
W. G. Cassels, Esq. 

Chairman Democratic Divisional Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Dear Sir: You will please furnish me with the original or a duly authen- 
ticated copy of telegram from Hon. Charles A. Sulzer to you or to the Demo- 
cratic divisional committee upon which is based the authority to appoint John 
A. Clark, Esq., and Cecil H. Clegg, Esq., to represent said Hon. Charles A. 
Sulzer at the hearing now held before me and the taking of depositions or tes- 
timony of witnesses respecting the election of said Sulzer as Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska which is being contested by James Wickersham. I shall be 
at my office in the city hall, at Fairbanks, Alaska, until 5 o'clock p. m. this 
day, at which time and place I shall be ready to receive said proof of authority. 
Respectfully, 

[seal] Henky T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

The hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, and said W. G. Cassels, Cecil H. Clegg, 
John A. Clark, or any other person, having failed and refused to produce said 
telegram from said Charles, A. Sulzer authorizing said Democratic divisional 
committee, or any other person, to appoint said Clegg and Clark, or either of 
them, or any other person, to so appear and represent said Sulzer, the entering 



166 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

of said Clegg and Clark as attorneys for said Snlzer in this hearing above 
noted is hereby canceled, and the acceptance and filing of the written objections 
Xiresented at the beginning of this hearing is' withdrawn from the files and 
record herein. 

The further hearing in this proceeding is liereby adjourned until Thursday, 
June 14, 1917, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. 

[seal] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires .June 7, 1920. 

Now, on this 14th day of June, 1917, at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, 
at the city hall in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, the hearing in the matter 
of the contested .election of Charles A. Sulzer as Delegate to Congress from 
Alaska, James Wickersham, contestant, was resumed before me, there being 
present Guy B. Erwin, attorney for James Wickersham, contestant, and John 
■A. Clark and Cecil H. Clegg, attorneys for Charles A. Sulzer, and all witnesses 
subpoenaed herein. 

Counsel for Mr. Siilzer offered written objections to the taking of the depo- 
sitions of any witnesses at Fairbanks, Alaska, which said written objections 
were accepted and are hereto attached and made a part hereof. 

Consul for Mr. Sulzer also made oral objection to the taking of depositions 
by the notary on the 14th day of June, same having been continued from the 
12th day of June to the 14th, the statutes prescribing adjournment may be 
taken from day to day and not for two days. 

The folloAving proceedings were then had : 

ROBERT LOGHRY, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Robert Loghry, 'age 40 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Master signal electrician at Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Fort Leavenworth. Kans. 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. It has. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote hi Fairbanks precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — 
A. I did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. I refuse to state. 

Q. What reason do you give for your refusal? — A. I don't know as I have to 
give any reason. I do not think the notary has proper authority to take my 
testimony. 

(The notary public here read to the witness sec. 116, chap. 8, Rev. Stat. U. S., 
1878, providing penalty for failure to attend and testify, and upon further de- 
mand to the witness to flnswer the question the witness refused so to do.) 

By Mr. Cle&g, counsel for Mr. Sulzer : 
Q. You are a citizen of the United States? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to November 7, 1916, how long had vou resided in Alaska? — A. Since 
June 10, 1915. 

Q. You are a married man, are you not? — A. I am. 

Q. State whether or not your family has resided here with you during that 
time. — A. Yes. 

Robeet Loghey. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of June. 1917. 
[seal.] Henky T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska, 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

JAMES G. COLEMAN, being first duly sworn, testifies as follows : 
Q. State your name and age. — A. I do not care to make any statement per- 
taining to myself concerning this election unless you produce your authority 
to act or the notice or a copy of the notice that Mr. Sulzer has been notified 
by Mr. Wickersham or an agreement entered into by the parties named above 
regarding tlie contest of election. 

(Notary here read telegram dated May 25-26, 1917, dated at Washington, 
D. C, signed by James Wickersham, authorizing notary to take depositions 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 167 

of witnesses in contest proceedings Wickershnm v. Sulzer, M'hich is hereto 
attached and made a part hereof.) 

Q. (by witness Coleman). Have you any authority other than the telegram 
read, or notification that Mr. AVickersham had notified Mr. Sulzer in writing, 
or any agreement between them? — A. (by notary. I have not. 
By Mr. Erwin : 

Q. You still refuse to state your name and age? — A. I do. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. I refuse to answer. 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as soldier? — A. I refuse to answer 
that. 

Q. In your refusals to testifv, are you acting under the advice of any per- 
son? — A. I refuse to" answer that. 

(The notary here read to the witness sec. 116, chap. S, Rev. Stat. U. S., 1878. 
providing penalty for failure to attend and testify.) 

Q. You still refuse to testify after hearing that section read? — A. I do. 

James G. Coleman. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 



My commission expires June 7, 1920. 



Notary Public in and for Alaska. 



Witnesses Griffin and Myerson. upon satisfactory showing that they had 
not voted at the election on Novem1)er 7, 1917, were excused from: further 
attendance. 

At this time the notary adjourned the hearing until June 15, 1917, at 1 
o'clock p. m.. and excused all witnesses until that time. 

Mr. Clegg, of counsel for Mr. Sulzer, entered objection to adjournment 
on the grounds that all the witnesses are now present, and that the officer, 
Henry T. Ray, as notary public, has now no authority under the statutes to 
postpone or continue the proceedings until to-morrow at the time set. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

]\Iy commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Now, on this 15th day of June, 1917, at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, 
at the city hall in the town of Fairbanks, being the time and place fixed for 
further hearing and taking testimony in the contest proceedings, there being 
present Guy B. Erwin, Esq., attorney for James Wickersham, contestant, and 
no one appearing for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee. and none of the witnesses 
appearing, the hearing was adjourned by me to 16, 1917, at 1 o'clock p. m. 

[SEAL.] Henri' T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Now, on this 16th day of June, 1917. at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, 
at the city hall in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, to which time and place 
the hearing and taking of testimony herein had been adjourned, there being 
present Guy B. Erwin, Esq., attorney for James Wickersham, contestant, and 
no one appearing for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and none of the witnesses 
subpceenaed herein appearing, the hearing was adjourned by me to Monday, 
June 18, 1917, at the hour of 1 o'clock p. m. 

[SEAL.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

On this 18th day of .Tune, at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, at the 
city hall, in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, to which time and place the hearing 
and the taking of testimony herein had been adjourned, there was present 
Guy B. Erwin, Esq., attorney for James Wickersham, contestant herein, and 
no one appearing for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee herein, and none of the wit- 
nesses subpoenaed appearing in obedience to said subpoena and the verbal notice 
given such witnesses by me of the time and place to which the proceedings 
had been adjourned, the hearing and the further taking of testimony herein 
is hereby closed. 



168 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Dated at Fairbanks, fourth division. Territory of Alaska, tliis IStli day of 
June, A. D. 1917. 

[SEAL.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fonrth Division, ss: 

I, the undersigned, notary public in and for Alaska, duly commissioned and 
qualified, being the same person designated by James Wickersham in his 
notice of contest to Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, under date May 25, 1917, to 
take depositions and testimony of witnesses respecting the election of said 
Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, as Delegate from Alaska to the Congress of the 
United States, hereby certify that the within and foregoing ten (10) sheets of 
typewritten matter (including this sheet) constitute the record of all the pro- 
ceedings had before me, and of the whole thereof, in the town of Fairbanks, 
Alaska. 

And I further certify that the hereto attached papers, to wit. telegraphic 
notice to take depositions, subpoena and proof of service thereof, copy of tele- 
gram authorizing attorneys to appear for Sulzer, objections of Mr. Sulzer to 
taking of depositions, and copy of letter from United States district attorney 
to Loghry are all the papers received by me and filed herein. 

Witness mv hand and notarial seal at Fairbanks, Alaska, this 18th day of 
June, A. D. 1917. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Form 135D. 1915. 

signal corps, united states army. TELEGRAM. 

Received at 3 v sn 246 NL— P CS. 

Washington, D. C, May 25-26, 1911. 
Henry T. Ray, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Have to-day notified Sulzer in writing that you will take testimony as notary 
public of 33 soldiers who were challenged in Fort Gibbon precinct election 
November 7 (see election returns Fort Gibbon precinct for name challenged 
soldiers) ; take testimony on Tuesday, June 6. 10 o'clock forenoon, and daily 
till completed at public schoolhouse in Tanana ; get names challenged soldiers 
off returns in office, clerk district court, Fairbanks ; you and Irwin go Tanana, 
subpoena each soldier who voted, have Irwin ask each soldier if he voted for 
Sulzer. write out his statement, and have him sign and swear ; evidence must 
be taken under chapter 8. sections 105 to 330. United States Revised Statutes, 
1878; forward evidence Clerk House Representatives under section 127, said 
chapter 8 ; Irwin will act at attorney and you as notary ; get every soldier who 
voted for Sulzer on record, also take similar testimony every soldier and 
Signal Corps man in Fairbanks who voted for Sulzer November 7; notice 
covers Fairbanks hearing also; hearing Fairbanks fixed for June 12 at 10 
o'clock, forenoon, at city hall ; soldiers are not voters and I want to show they 
voted for Sulzer ; do not fail ask my friends give you assistance ; contest going 
along satisfactorily; expect to go Tacoma for month and then back to Wash- 
ington ; thiiik advisable keep this telegram confidentially and not make it public ; 
enemy will not take advantage if we keep quiet. 

.Tames Wickersham. 

subpcena. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska. Fourth Dii-ision, ss: 

The President of the United States of Amei'ica, greeting: 

To Robert Loghry. James G. Coleman, Harry Shutts, John E. Pegues. Charles 
Agnetti, Raphael Myerson, Herman B. Stenbuck, Frank R. Moore, Austni 
Foster, Thomas Griffin, William Kirliy, Durwood M. Hocker. 

You are hereby required that, all and singular business and excuse being 
set aside, you appear and attend before the undersigned, Henry T. Ray, a 
notary public in and for Alaska, at the city hall, in the town of Fairbanks, 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 169 

Alaska, on the 12th day of June, A. P. 1917, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the 
forenoon of said day, then and there to be examined on oath respecting the 
election of Charles A. Sulzer, as Delegate from Alaska to Congress, which is 
Toeing contested by James Wickersham ; and if you refuse or neglect to attend 
and testify as above required, you will be subject to penalty and liable to 
indictment as prescribed by section 116, chapter 8, Revised Statutes of the 
United States, 1978. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 29th day of May, 1917. 

[SE.-\L.] Henry T. Ray. 

Notary Puhlic in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Moore served, 7th ; rest served, 6th ; Stenbuck not served. — G. B. E. 

TJnited States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Dimsiori, ss: 
G. B. Erwin, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says as follows: 
That I received the hereunto annexed subpcena on the 29th day of May, 
1917, and that I duly and personally served the same on the therein-named 
Robert Loghry, James G. Coleman, Harry Shutts. John E. Pegues, Charles 
Agnetti, Raphael Myerson, Austin L. Foster, Thomas G. Grifhn, William A. Kirby, 
and Durwood M. Hocker, at Fairbanks, Alaska, on the 6th day of June, 1917, 
and on Frank R. Moore, at Fairbanks, Alaska, on the 7th day of June, 1917, 
l)y delivering a copy thereof to and leaving the same with each of the said 
persons named. 

G. B. Erwix. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Wallace Cathcart. 

A Notary Puhlic in and for the Territory of Alaska. 

My commission expires June 9, 1919. 

(Copy.) 

Washington, D. C, June 13, 1911. 
John A. Clark, Fairbanks. 

You and Cecil Clegg, hereby authorized, represent me in case Wickersham v. 
Sulzer. 

Chas. a. Sulzer. 
3.22 p. m. 

Accepted and filed this 14th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, Notary Public. 

•OBJECTIONS OF MR. SULZER TO THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF ANY WITNESSES 

AT FAIRBANKS, ALASKA. 

On behalf of Mr. Charles A. Sulzer we object to the proceedings herein and 
to the taking of any testimony, and especially to the taking of the testimony of 
the following witnesses, viz, Robert Loghry, James G. Coleman, Durwood M. 
Hoeker, William A. Kirby, John E. Pegues, Austin L. Foster, Thomas G. Grif- 
fin, Harry Shutts, Raphael Myerson, Frank R. Moore, and Charles Agnetti, upon 
each of the following grounds : 

That no sufficient, proper, or legal notice was given to Mr. Sulzer, as required 
by section 108 of chapter 8, Revised Statutes of the United States, in that the 
alleged notice of the taking of these depositions failed to state at what particu- 
lar place within the town of Fairbanks said depositions would be taken ; also 
because said alleged notice failed to state the name or names of the witnesses 
who were to give testimony in these proceedings and did not state the name of 
any witness whose deposition was to be taken under said proceedings ; also on 
the ground that the residence of the witnesses was not stated in said alleged 
notice nor the residence of any witness. 

On the further ground that no notice whatever, nor any legal notice, has 
been given to Mr. Sulzer as to the proof intended to be offered by Mr. Wicker- 
sham, or as to the facts alleged by him as the basis for this contest, and that 
Mr. Sulzer, the returned member, has no information whatever as to the issues 



170 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

to be presented by this contest, nor has any notice as to the issues in this con- 
test been furnislied or given in any way to any of the witnesses wlio are to be 
examined. 

On the furtlier ground that no copy of tlie notice of contest or of the answer 
of Mr. Sulzer to the facts alleged 'or attempted to be presented by Mr. Wicker- 
sham is in the possession of the officer taking these depositions, and therefore 
the same can not be prefixed thereto when taken for the purpose of being trans- 
mitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as provided by section 126 
of said chapter 8 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

It is further objected that the questions propounded, or proposed to be pro- 
pounded, to each and every witness so to be examined at Fairbanks, Alaska, 
on the 14th day of June, 1917, are not shown to be within any of the issues pre- 
sented by the notice of contest and the answer required to be filed in this mat- 
ter, and said witnesses can not know, and do not know, whether or not the 
questions propounded to them on behalf of the. contestant are proper questions 
or are within the issues, or any issues, presented in said contest, nor is it pos- 
sible for Mr. Sulzer to know what the facts are, required to be developed by 
him in the cross-examination of said witnesses for the purpose of meeting their 
testimony on direct examination. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the officer before whom these deposi- 
tions are taken that the foregoing objections were made to the entire proceed- 
ings herein and to the taking of the testimony of each of the above-named wit- 
nesses before the said proceedings were commenced and before any of the said 
witnesses offered or gave any testimony in said proceeding, and that for the pur- 
pose of shortening the record and facilitating the progress of said proceedings 
the foregoing objections are to be considered separately as to each witness 
whose deposition is taken herein, and that but a single statement of said objec- 
tions need be set forth in the returns made on said depositions. 

Cecil H. Clegg, 
John A. Clark, 
Attorneys for Mr. Sulzer. 
G. is. Eewin, 
Attorney for Mr. Wickersham. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray. 

Notary Public for Alaska, 

Dated June 14. 1917. 

June 14, 1917. 
Robert Loghry, M. S. E., Signal Coi'ps. 

Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Sir : Replying to your communication of June 14, 1917. inclosing correspon- 
dence re contest of Wickersham against Sulzer, In the House of Representatives 
of the United States, will say : 

First. That contested elections of seats in the House of Representatives are 
provided for by chapter 8 of the Revised Statutes of the United States of 1878. 

Second. Under the fourth subdivision of section 110 in said chapter 8 a 
notary public is authorized to take depositions for either of the contestants. 

Third. Inasmuch as a notary public is not a court of record, he has no 
authority to issue subpoenas and take depositions. Therefore before any person 
is bound to respond to a subpoena issuecl by a notary public the notary issuing 
the same must show affirmatively his authority under the provisions of said 
chapter 8. 

Fourth. The authority that must be shown by the notary consists, of the 
following : 

(a) He must have in his possession a copy of the notice of contest which 
states particularly the grounds upon which the contestant relies in the contest. 

(b) He must have in his possession a copy of the notice that depositions 
will be taken before him at a certain time and place, which notice must specify 
the name of the witnesses whose depositions they expect to take, together with 
their places of residence, which notice shall contain the name of the notary 
public before whom the deposition will be taken. 

(c) He must have in his possession proof that the notice of contest was 
served on the opposing pai-ty, also proof that the notice of the taking of 
depositions was served on the opposing party. 

(d) Proof of notice of the taking of depositions will not be necessary if the 
notary has in his possession a copy of a stipulation entered into between the 
parties which waives proof of the official character of the officer taking the 
deposition, and waives notice of the taking of the depositions. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. % 171 

(e) Witnesses are not required to answer any questions which are not con- 
fined to the proof or disproof of tlie facts alleged or denied in the notice ol con- 
test and the answer thereto. Therefore it is necessary in all cases that a copy 
of all notices of contest must be in the possession of the notary public, ana the 
witnesses permitted to inspect the same, so that he may, if he desires, limit 
his answers to the questions involved in the contest. 

(/) If the notice of contest provides that the taking of testimony may be 
adjourned from day to day, then the notary public will have the right to 
adjourn the same from day to day, otlierwise not. and before the notary public 
can require a witness to testify at an adjourned hearing lie must .snow the 
copy of the notice of the taking of said depositions, which notice must show 
such authority to adjourn from day to day, and in my opinion, an adjourn- 
ment for two days is not an adjournment from day to day, and such adjourn- 
ment in any event would be unauthorized. 

Fifth. Under the strict rules of law the notary would be required to have 
authenticated copies of these two notices, which copies should be signed by the 
contestant issuing the same in his own handwriting, but owing to the fact 
that Fairbanks is so far distant from Washington, D. C, and it would therefore 
perhaps be impossible to procure depositions within the time limit in said 
chapter 8, I would advise that you respond to a subpoena issued by a notary 
public, having telegraphic copies of said documents, together with the proof 
of service of the same, also made by telegram, or if the notary has a telegram 
showing an agreement between W^ickersham and Sulzer for the taking of these 
depositions, such telegram will take the place of the notice of taking depositions 
and proof of service thereof. 

Answering the second paragraph of your communication, I will say that there 
is nothing in the law that would prevent, so far as I know, any soldier from 
appearing before any notary public, or private individual, man or woman, and 
giving a deposition, providing they to do so, but there is no law to compel 
them to appear before the notary public and testifying in an election contest 
in the House of Representatives, except as above stated. 
Yours, very truly. 

(Signed) R. F. Roth, 

Uniiecl States Attorney. 

A true copy. 

Robert Loghrt, M. S. E., Signal Corps. 

Received and filed June IS, 1917. 

[seal] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Piihlic in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

subpoena. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss. 
The President of the United. States of Ameriea. Greeting: 

To Steven Bauer, Nathan 0. Hatfield, Michael Sullivan. Hugh T. Phillips, 
Cleveland Douglas, Joseph Grabowski, John H. Davis, Thomas J. Galvin. 
Silas Hewitt, Daniel Doherty, Jasper L. Moser, Wm. E. Wood, Albert J. Hass, 
Daniel B. Allen. W. H. Shannon, John D. McNeeley. Walter H. Dehas. Orvel 
Jones, George W. Pennington, Louis G. Selk. Ralph .7. McGonigle. Clarence 
Hefron. Frederick L. Huffman. Harry F. Clark, Lester B. LeGier, John O. 
Sherlock, Edward .J. Toland, Basil Fitzwilliam. Ralph O. Wilson. Sidney 
Bridgewater, Joseph Barton, T. Drury, Melvin Jones, and Charles E. Feder. 

You are hereby required, that, all and singular business and excuse being 
set aside, you appear and attend before the undersigned, Henry T. Ray, a 
notary public in and for Alaska, at the public-school house in the town of 
Tanana. Alaska, on the 6th day of .June, A. D. 1917, at the hour of 10 o'clock 
in the forenoon of said day, then there to be examined on oath respecting the 
election of Charles A. Sulzer. as Delegate from Alaska to Congress, which is 
being contested by .James Wickersham, and if you refuse or neglect to attend 
and testify as above reqiiired, you will be subject to penalty and liable to 
indictment as prescribed by section 116, chapter S, Revised Statutes of the 
United States, 1878. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 31st day of May, 1917. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

Mj commission expires June 7, 1920. 



172 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

I hereby certify that I served the within subpoena upon Charles E. Feder, 
Ralph J. McGonigle. Clarence Hefron, Ralph O. Wilson, Louis G. Selk, Fred- 
erick L. Huffman, Melvin Jones. Thomas F. Galvin, Steven Bauer, Cleveland 
Douglas, Albert .T. Haas, Michael Sullivan, Daniel Doherty, John D. McNeely, 
Lester B. LeGier, Sidney Bridgewater, William E. Wood, Harry F. Clark, 
Joseph Grabowski, Joseph Barton, W. J. Shannon, John H. Davis, George W. 
Pennington, Nathan C. Hatfield, Basil Fitzwilliams. Orvel Jones, Silas Hewitt, 
Joseph Drury, Hugh T. Phillips. Daniel B. Allen. John O. Sherlock, and Edward 
J. Toland, on the 1st day of June A. D. 1917, at Fort Gibbon, Alaska, by 
reading the original and delivering a copy thereof to each of said persons in 
this return named, personally. I was unable to find Jasper L. Moser and 
Walter H. Dehas. 

Dated at Tanana, Alaska, this 1st day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

'Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires .Tune 7, 1920. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 

Now on this 6th day of June, 1917, at the public-school house in the town of 
Tanana, fourth division, Territory of Alaska, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the 
forenoon, before Henry T. Ray, a notary public in and for Alaska, the officer 
designated in the notice of the above-named contestant, James Wickersham, 
to Charles A. Sulzer, the contestee, under date of May 25, 1917, to take deposi- 
tions of witnesses on behalf of said contestant, James Wickersham, D. F. 
McClure, a notary public in and for Alaska having been selected by R. S. 
McDonald, the agent or attorney of said contestee Sulzer officiating with said 
notary public Henry T. Ray, and R. S. McDonald, the agent or attorney of 
said contestee Sulzer being present, the following named persons, who had 
been duly and regularly served with subpoena issued by said Henry T. Ray, 
notary public as aforesaid (which said subpoena is hereto attached and made 
a part hereof), appeared and being first duly sworn, each upon his oath 
testified as follows respecting said contested election of said contestee Charles 
A. Sulzer : 

Before proceeding to the taking of testimony R. S. McDonald tendered 
telegram from Charles A. Sulzer, received by himself, as authorization for 
acting as his agent. It read as follows : 
^' R. S. McDonald, Tanana: 

" You are hereby authorized represent me at hearing before Henry Ray at 
Fort Gibbon in delegate contest case Wickersham v. Sulzer. 

" Charles A. Sulzer, Delegate." 

R. S. McDonald, by virtue of section 118, Revised Statutes United States 
appointed D. F. McClure. a notary public, to officiate with Mr. Ray. 

Copy of notice of contestant to contestee not being produced in evidence by 
Mr. Ray, objection was taken to the taking of any testimony whatsoever on 
the grounds that the statute had not been complied with, particularly in regard 
to section 105, Avhich provides that the " contestant must * * * give notice, 
in writing, to the member whose seat he designs to contest of his intention to 
contest the same, and, in such notice, shall specify particularly the grounds 
upon which he relies in the contest." Section 121 provides that " The testimony 
to be taken by either party to the contest shall be confined to the proof or 
disproof of the facts alleged or denied in the notice and answer " ; and section 
108 directs that the party desiring to take depositions shall give the opposite 
party notice in writing of the time and place, when and where the same will 
be taken, which notice shall include the names of the witnesses to be examined. 

Objection was taken on the grounds that the notary public acting for the 
contestant did not have in his possession a duly authenticated copy of the 
notice, and it was impossible for the contestee (acting by agent in this case), 
to know whether the testimony sought to be adduced was to be confined to the 
pleadings or not. 

Copies of the two following telegrains and of a memorandum were tendered 
as evidence by R. S. McDonald, agent of contestee. and accepted after iden- 
tification by Henry T. Ray, the notary public. 

Fort Gibson, Alaska, November 1, 1916. 
Commanding General, San Francisco, Cal.: 

United States attorney this district is of the opinion and has so expressed 
In writing that enlisted men serving in Alaska for over one year are entitled 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. * 173 

to vote at coming election ; request instructions at once and interpretation of 
permanent domicile, paragraph 1860, R. S. U. S. 

McIntyee. 
A true copy. 

S. B. McIntyee, 

Captain, Fourteenth Infantry. 

San Feancisco, November 6, 1916. 
C. O. Gibbon : 

Your telegram November 1st re enlisted men voting, presents abstract ques- 
tion ; no general discussion can be given ; each case must be decided on merits ; 
exercise extreme caution. 

Baeeette. 
A true copy. 

S. B. McIntyee, 

Captain, Fourteenth Infantry. 

Headquaetees, 
FoET Gibbon, Alaska, Novem,ber 6, 1917. 

[ Memorandum. ] 

Under date of October 17, 1916, the United States Attorney of the Fourth 
Judicial District of Alaska, has expressed the opinion that enlisted men are en- 
titled to vote at the coming election provided they are citizens of the United 
States and have been residents of Alaska for one year and have resided within 
the district for 30 days immediately preceding the date of election. 

The attention of all concerned is invited to the fact that only actual and 
legal residents of Alaska are entitled to vote ; that a declaration of legal resi- 
dence in Alaska forfeits the legal residence of the voter in his pennanent domi- 
cile, as no citizen can have legal residence in more than one State. 

Enlisted men desiring to vote will see the commanding officer in his office 
before so doing. 

S. B. McIntyee, 
Captain Fourteenth Infantry, 

Commanding. 

A true copy. 
S. B. McIntyee, 

Captain, Fourteenth Infantry. 

After stating the constitutional enactment in regard to the holding of elec- 
tions and law prescribed by the Legislature of the Teritory of Alaska, 
section 22, chapter 2.5, Laws of Alaska, 1915, Mr. McDonald made the follow- 
ing statement : " That while the courts have held that the notary public ap- 
pointed in such cases as this, if he has complied with the other formalities of 
the law as set forth in chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, has an undoubted right to examine witnesses and inspect papers ; they 
are also explicit to the effect that his usual rights are preserved to the witness, 
and there appears to be no law that would take from a voter his right to main- 
tain the secrecy of his ballot, one of the chief aims of the Australian ballot 
system." 

Henry T. Ray, the notary public designated to take the testimony, then read 
section 116. chapter 9, Revised Statutes of the United States, to the witnesses, 
who were all present, and warned them of the consequences following a refusal 
to answer questions, and all declaring that they fully understood the import 
of the statute, the taking of testimony was then proceded with. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
On this 6th day of June, A. D. 1917, before me, Henry T. Ray, a notary 
public in and for Alaska, personally appeared — 

ALBERT J. HAAS, who, after being duly sworn, on oath testified as fol- 
lows : 
Q. State your name and age? — A. Albert J. Haas, age 35 years. 
Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 
1916?— A. Soldier. 



174 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that (late. — A. Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Q. Did yon, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
I did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I don't remember how I cast my ballot. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Do you, of your own knowledge, know that a telegram was sent by 
Capt. Mcintyre to the commanding general, at San Francisco, on November 
1, regarding the rights of soldiers to vote at the then forthcoming election?— A. 
Yes. 

Q. Is this document I am now handing you a true copy of the same? — 
A. It is. 

Q. Do you know if this second document I now hand you is a true copy of 
the answer that was received by Capt. Mcintyre from the general? — A. It is 

Q. Is this other document I now hand you a true copy of a memorandum 
that was subsequently, on November 6, issued to the enlisted men by Capt, 
Mcintyre? — A. It is. 

Albekt J. Haas. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for- Alaska. 
Commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

D. F. McClure, 
Notary PuMic in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

CHARLES E. FEDER, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Charles E. Feder ; age, 25 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct. Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. I 
did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. I voted for Wickersham. 

No questions asked by Mr. McDonald. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Charles E. Feder. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McClxjre, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

RALPH J. McGONIGLE, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Ralph J. McGonigle ; age, 24 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date? — A. St. Louis, Mo. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska?— A. I decline to answer. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. x 175 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of tlie United States, 21 years of ag'e? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to tlie date of tlie last Delegate election. November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election? — A. I had. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska. 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election 
and understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska 
to be your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to 
enlistment or coming to Alaska? — A. I haven't read the memorandum, but I 
read a telegram signed by Bunnell covering the thing. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that' 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are 
an actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election ; and that 
you have not voted at this election " ? — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The telegram referred to, did you mean it was signed by Judge Bunnell? — 
A. It was a telegram posted on the bulletin board of B Company, signed 
" Bunnell." 

Ralph J. McGonigle. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McCltjre, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

CLARENCE HEFRON, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Clarence Hefron ; age, 33 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — A. Vancouver Barracks, Wash. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I can't recall whether I did or not. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election — November 7. 1916 — had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as re- 
quired by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to 
provide official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "?— A. Yes, sir. 



176 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding ofRcer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly sv/ear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in this 
voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not 
voted at this election"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
I'esidence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 
Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Clarence Hefeon. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henky T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires .Tune 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McCluue, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

RALPH O. WILSON, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Ralph O. Wilson ; age, 24 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date? — A. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer; I consider myself a legal voter. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election — November 7, 1916 — had 
you lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir.« 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska " ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you delilierately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long had you lived in Alaska, prior to enlistment, as a civilian? — 
A. Since 1911. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. . 177 



Q. Were you a citizen of the United States prior to enlistment? — A. Yes, sir. 

Ralph O. Wil.son. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me tins 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henky T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

LOUIS G. SELK, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Louis G. Selk, age 36 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 
1916?— A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Fort Lawton, Wash. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congi-ess from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to 
Congress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer, unless there is authority to 
compel me to. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. xlre you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. • 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration books at the polling place before voting, 
the same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter, as 
required by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to 
provide ofiicial ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska? — A. I did not read but gathered as much from 
conversation with the commanding officer. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to j^ou did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 
Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Louis G. Selk. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McClube, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska^ 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

13289—17 12 



178 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

FREDERICK L. HUFFMAN, first being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age? — A. Frederick L. Huffman, age 36 years. 

Q. What was your business, ocxiupation, or profession on November 7, 
1916?— A. Soldier.' 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date? — A. San Francisco, Cal. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct. Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
I did. 

Q. Did you then and thei'e vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to 
Congress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, hud you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election *> — A. I had. 

Q. Have you ever ofiicially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. I have not. 

Q. Did you sign the registration books at the polling place before voting, 
the same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter, as 
required by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to 
provide oflacial ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding oflicer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
yovu- residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
yoix are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
"actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the 'entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 

Q. Has that been your occupation sine? coming to Alaska? — A. It has. 

Feedekick L. Huffman. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires Jvme 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
Jseal.] D- F. McClure. 

• ' Notary Public in and for Alaska. 

My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

MELVIN JONES, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Melvin Jones, age 24 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes sir. 

q'. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age?— A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had 
you lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 
30 days immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 179 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, 
the same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as re- 
quired by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to 
provide official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the msmorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election 
and understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska 
to be your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to 
enlistment or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did yon subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented 
you by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear 
that you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are 
an actual and bona fide resident of Alska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in 
the voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — ^A. I did. 

By Mr. Rat : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Melvin Jones. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] . Henry T. Rat, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

THOMAS F. GALVIN, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Thomas F. Galvin, age 42 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. Mr. Ray, as a citizen of the United States I hold 
voting as a sacred duty and I don't believe any man has a right to ask another 
man how he voted. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7. 1916, had 
you lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 
30 days immediately preceding that election? — Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, 
the same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as re- 
quired by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to 
provide official ballots for elections in the Teritrory of Alaska"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
you residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented 
you by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear 
that vou are 21 vears of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are 



180 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

an actual bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during: 
the entire year, immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in the voting precinct for 30 days nest preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as- 
your rsidence? — A. Yes, sir. 

My Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — Yes, sir. 

Thomas F. Galvin. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAx] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska.. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscriljed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McClxjke, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
^ My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

STEVEN BAUER being first duly sworn testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age? — A. Steven Bauer, age 21 years on June 15, 1916, 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress- 
from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 
By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been oflically declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required by 
section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide official 
ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on Novem- 
ber 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that you 
are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the entire 
year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in the voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election and that you have not voted at 
this election"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately, elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That has been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Steven Bauer. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Jtine, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. ^ 181 

CLEVELAND DOUGLAS being first duly sworn testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age? — A. Cleveland Douglas, age 22 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916?^ 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election. November, 7. 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been offically declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. ., 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
l)y section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the territory of Alaska "? — A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on Novem- 
ber 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
l)y the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in the 
voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not 
voted at this election"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Cleveland Douglas. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of .Tune, 1917. 

[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Michael Sullivan ; age, 37 years. 

Q. What was your business occupation or profession on November 7, 1916?— 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon Precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of. Alaska one year, and in the fourth di^'ision for 30 
days innnediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime ?^ — A. No, sir. 



182 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Q. Did you sign tlie registration book at tlie polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence, and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election, and liave been a resident in 
the voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Michael Sullivan. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska, 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alanka. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

DANIEL DOHERTY, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Daniel Doherty ; age, 39 years. 

Q. What was your business occupation or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon Precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska ?^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I'es, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last delegate election. November 7, 1916. had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 
days, immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever l)een officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required by 
section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide official 
ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "V — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. l"es, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " Y"ou do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska, and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident 
in the voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that yon 
have not voted at this election"? — A. Yes, sir. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE, • 183 

Q. In evex'y manner known to yon did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 
By Mr. Ray: 
Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Daniel Doherty. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaslca. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June. 1917. 

[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Puhlic in and for Alaska. 
My, commission expires March 20, 1920. 

t ,■■ ■ ■ 

JOHN D. McNEELY, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q. State your name and age. — A. John D. McNeely, age 29 yeai's. 

Q. What was vour business, occupation, or profession on NoA^ember 7, 1916? — ■ 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you, then and there, vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I did, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. HaA'e you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on Its first page the qualifications of a voter as required by 
section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, " An act to provide official 
ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska ? — A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in the 
voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not 
voted at this election"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residences — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray: 
Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

John D. McNeely. 
Subscribed and sworn to befoi-e me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaslca. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 



184 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

• 

LESTER B. Le GIER, being first duly s\Yorn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Lester B. Le Gier, age 25 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you, then and there, vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. I had. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, " An act to provide 
ofiicial ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on Novem- 
ber 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your resi- 
dence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or coming 
to Alaska?— A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as folloM^s : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the entire 
year inamediately preceding this election and have been a resident in the voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not voted 
at this election " ? — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I have. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. It has. 

Lestee B. Le Gier. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and swom to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

SIDNEY BRIDGEWATER, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age.— A. Sidney Bridgewater, age 27 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct. Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately precetling that election? — A. Yes, sir. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 185 

Q. Have you exer officially been declarecl an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
.•an infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of said chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, " An act to pro- 
vide official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to tlie qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this flection and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election ; and that you have 
not voted at this election? " — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you. did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier ?^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that beeu your occupation since first coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald: 
Q. How long had you beeu in Alaska? — A. Since July, 1914. 

Sidney Beidgewater. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary PuhJlc in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7. 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917 : 
[SEAL.] D. F. McGlure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

WILLIAM E. WOOD, first being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. William E. Wood, 37 years of age. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date? — A. Fort Lawton, Washington. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — 
A. 1 did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I don't consider that a proper question, Mr. Ray. I 
decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, 
the same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as re- 
quired by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915. " An act to 
provide official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
A'ember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which reads as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 



186 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

you are 21 years of age :mcl a citizen of the Uuited States, that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaslta and have been such resident during the entire 
year immediately preceding tliis election, and have been a resident in this voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you liave not voted 
at this election? — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you, did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did on come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir; tlie 
last time. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes. 
Q. Did you reside in Alaska previous to your last enlistment? — A. Yes; for 
six years. 

William E. Wood. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of .June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary PuhUe in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires .Tune 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. .McCluke, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

HENRY F. CLARK, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Henry F. Clark; age, 24 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — A. Fort Logan, Colo. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer that question. 
By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States. 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 
days inunediately preceding tbat election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign tbe registration book at tbe polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 2.5 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territorj' of Alaska?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding oflicer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
\by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 
By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that has been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes; sir. 

Harry F. Clark. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 187 

Subscribed and sworn to before, me this 6tli day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7. 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McClube, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
i\Iy commission expires March 20, 1920. 

JOSEPH GRABOUSKI. being first duly sworn, testifed as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Joseph Grabouslii ; age, 23 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Columbus Barracks, Ohio. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer that question. 
By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States. 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 2.5 of the laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did 3'ou read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, .sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election? " — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes. sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Joseph Grabouski. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and. for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

JOSEPH BARTON, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 
Q. State your name and age. — A. Joseph Barton, age 32 years. 
Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 



188 - WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — ^A. Jefferson Barracks. Mo. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — ^A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I don't remember. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7. 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime ?^ — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemly swear that you 
are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the entire 
year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in this voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not voted 
at this election "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes. sir. 
Q. That has been your occupation since you have been in Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Joseph Barton. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

W, J. SHANNON, first being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q. State your name and age. — A. W. J. Shannon, age 26 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — ^A. Jackson Barracks, La. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Cliarles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I object to that question for the reason that it is 
irrelevant and does not reveal whether my vote was legal or not. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. I had. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 189 

Q. Did you sign tlie registration booli at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required by 
section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide official 
ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the conuuanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. I read the memorandum of the commanding officer and 
also talked to the commanding officer on the subject. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that you 
are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the entire 
year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in this voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not voted 
at this election? — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray: 
Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska ? — A. No. 
Q. What other occupation did you have? — A. Since December 17, 1916, I have 
been post blacksmith at Fort Gibbon as a civilian employee. 

W. J. Shannon. 

Subscribed and sworn to befoi-e me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Pudlic in and for Alaska,. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

JOHN H. DAVIS, first being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. John H. Davis ; age, 28 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 
1916?— A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — A. Fort Logan, Colo. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you then and there 'vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at-the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska"? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote vA the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 



190 WICKEHSHAM VS. SULZER. 

actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election "? — -A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier ? — A. Yes, sir ; I did. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

John H. Davis. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public In and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn lo before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McCluke, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

GEORGE W. PENNINGTON, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. George W. Pennington ; age, 23 years. 

Q. What 'was vour business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 
1916?— A. Soldier.' 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and thex-e vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7. 1916, had yon 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the foiirth division for 30 
days immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of 
an infamous crime? — A. No. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book ijt the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on Its first page the qualifications of ,a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915. "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election .iudges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in the voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election"? — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has "that been your occupation since coming to Alaska ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Geobge W. Pennington. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My connuission expires June 7, 1920. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 191 

% 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6tli day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. P. McCltjee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires Marcli 20. 1920. 

NATHAN C. HATFIELD, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Nathan C. Hatfield, age 21 years on October 
24, 1916. 

Q. What ^\■as your business occupation or profession on November 7, 1916? — ■ 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska ? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. I had. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 2.5 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska " ? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be. 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in the voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election? " — A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray: ^ 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This has been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Nathan C. Hatfield. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7. 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June. 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

BASIL FITZWILLIAMS, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Basil Fitzwilliams ; age 31 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7. 1916? — • 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment -in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Fort Leavenworth, Kans. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916. vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Tes, sir. 



192 wickeesh;am vs. sulzek. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days, 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualififications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6 in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska, and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you 
have not voted at this election?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you expect to remain here indefinitely? — A. Yes, sir. 

Basil Fitzwilliams. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Hekry T. Ray, 

'Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Puhlic in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

ORVEL JONES, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Orvel Jones ; age, 29 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date.— A. Fort Wright, Wash. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter, as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska?"— A. Yes, sir. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. ' 193 

Q. Did you read the memoraudum issued by the commanding officer on No- 
vember 6, 1916, in regard to tlie qualifications of a voter at the election, and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence, and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, Avhich read as follows: "You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska, and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election? " — A. Yes. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Oka^l Jones. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Henry T. Ra.y, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal,] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

SILAS HEWITT, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age.^ — A. Silas Hewitt. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Fort Snelling, Minn. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct. Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — ^A. I won't say. 

By Mr. McDonald : , 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever oflicially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter, as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of AJaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska? " — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election, and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence, and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlistment 
or coming to Alaska? — A. It was read off to me ; I didn't read it. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election .ludges, which read as f ollows : . " Yovi do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age, and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next precedng this election, and that you 
have not voted in this election?" — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you. did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. While I am in Alaska. 

13289—17 13 



194 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

My Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you expect to remain in Alaska when you are out of the service? — 
A. No, sir. 

Silas *Hewitt. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McClure, 

Notary Puhlic in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 

On this 6th day of June, A. D. 1917, before me, Henry T. Ray, a notary 
public in and for Alaska, personally appeared. — J. DRURY, who, after being 
duly sworn on oath, testified as follows: 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Joseph Drury, age 29 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date? — A. Jefferson Barracks, Mo. 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. You are a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you lived in the Territory of Alaska 1 year prior to November 7, 
1916, and in the fourth division 30 days immediately preceding that date? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you ever been officially decla-red an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — -A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book before voting? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you in every fnanner known to you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. When did vou elect Alaska as your residence? — A. When I came to Alaska 
in 1914. 

Q. You came to Alaska as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Joseph Dexjey. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
Commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

HUGH T. PHILLIPS, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age.— A. Hugh T. Phillips, age 27 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916?— 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date. — A. Jefferson Barracks, Mo. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 195 

Q. Did you, on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election tlien and tliere held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska ? — A. I did ; yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald : 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States. 21 years of age? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Prior to the day of the last Delegate election on November 7. 1916. had 
you lived in the Territory of Alaska for 1 year, and 'in the fourth division for 
30 day;3 immediately preceding said election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska of 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6 in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election, and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence j'ou had acquired prior to enlisting 
or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident in this 
voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election, and that you have not 
voted at this election?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you, did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ray: 

Q. Did you come to Alaska as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Hugh T. Phillips. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. F. McOluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

DANIEL B. ALLEN, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Daniel B. Allen ; age, 33 years. 

Q. What was vour business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. > 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — A. Fort Gibbon, Alaska. 

Q. Did you on November 7. 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Had you prior to November 7, 1916, lived in the Territory of Alaska for 
one year and in the foiu-th division 30 days immediately preceding that date? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been officially declared insane, an idiot, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polls before voting? — A. I pre- 
sume so ; I am not sure. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on Novem- 
ber 6 in regard to the qualifications of a voter in Alaska, and did you under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlisting or 
coming to Alaska? — A.' Yes, sir. 



196 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the 
entire year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident in 
this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election ; and that you have- 
not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes, sir. 
By Mr. Ray : 
Q. Did you come to Alaska as an enlisted man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Daniel B. Allen. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska.. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. F. McCluke, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

JOHN O. SHERLOCK, first being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. John O. Sherlock ; age, 34 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior to 
that date. — A. Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at an 
election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Congress 
from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. I am. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the fourth division for 30 days 
immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever officially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required by 
section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide official 
ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on Novem- 
ber 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election and under- 
stand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be your 
residence and forfeited any residence you^had acquired prior to enlistment or 
coming to Alaska? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that you 
are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an actual 
and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during the entire 
year immediately preceding this election, and have been a resident in this voting 
precinct for 30 days next preceding this election ; and that you have not voted 
at this election "?— A. I did. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Ray : 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. I did. 
Q. Has that been your occupation since coming to Alaska? — A. Yes. 

By Mr. McDonald: 
Q. Have you voted previously at an election in Alaska? — A. I voted in 1908 
and 1912 at Valdez. 

John O. Sherlock. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 197 

Subscribed and sworn to befoi'e me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 

[SE.\L.] D. F. McCluee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

EDWARD J. TOLAND, being first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and age. — A. Edward J. Toland ; age. 36 years. 

Q. What was your business, occupation, or profession on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Soldier. 

Q. Give the place of your last enlistment in the United States Army prior 
to that date? — A. Fort St. Michael, Alaska. 

Q. Did you on November 7, 1916, vote in Fort Gibbon precinct, Alaska, at 
an election then and there held for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you then and there vote for Charles A. Sulzer for Delegate to Con- 
gress from Alaska? — A. I decline to answer the question until I get further 
counsel. 

By Mr. McDonald: 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Prior to the date of the last Delegate election, November 7, 1916, had you 
lived in the Territory of Alaska one year, and in the fourth division for 30 
liays immediately preceding that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever oflicially been declared an idiot, insane, or convicted of an 
infamous crime? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you sign the registration book at the polling place before voting, the 
same having printed on its first page the qualifications of a voter as required 
by section 22 of chapter 25 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, "An act to provide 
official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read the memorandum issued by the commanding officer on 
November 6, 1916, in regard to the qualifications of a voter at the election, and 
understand that by casting a vote at the election you declared Alaska to be 
your residence and forfeited any residence you had acquired prior to enlist- 
ment or coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you subscribe to the oath required in case of challenge presented you 
by the election judges, which read as follows : " You do solemnly swear that 
you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States ; that you are an 
actual and bona fide resident of Alaska and have been such resident during 
the entire year immediately preceding this election and have been a resident 
in this voting precinct for 30 days next preceding this election ; and that you 
liave not voted at this election " ? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. In every manner known to you did you deliberately elect Alaska as your 
residence? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been in Alaska? — A. Since June 16, 1913. 

Q. Did you come to Alaska in the service as a soldier? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that been your occupation since first coming to Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

EdWAED J. TOLAND. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] Henry T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1917. 
[seal.] D. F. McCuee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division, ss: 
I hereby certify that the foregoing thirty-five (35) sheets of typevpritten 
anatter is composed of the original subpoena, all pi'oceedings had, and all testi- 



198 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

mony taken before me at the public schoolbouse in the town of Tanana. fourth 
division, Territory of Alaska, on this 6th clay of June, A. D. 1917, in the matter 
of the contested election of Charles A. Sulzer as Delegate to' Congress from 
the Territory of, Alaska, James Wickersham, contestant, and that said testi- 
mony was so taken in behalf of said James Wickersham. contestant aforesaid. 
Witness my hand and notarial seal at Tanana, Alaska, this 6th day of June, 
1917. 

[SEAL.] Heney T. Ray, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 7, 1920. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal at Tanana, Alaska, this 6th day of June, 
1917. 

[seal.] D. F. McCuee, 

Notary Public in and for Alaska. 
My commission expires March 20, 1920. 

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF SOLDIERS NOW AT TORT GIBBON AND FAIRBANKS, 

ALASKA. 

To Charles A. Sulzer, contestee in the above proceeding: 

You are hereby notified that the contestant, James Wickersham, is desirous 
of obtaining the testhnony of the following-named persons in the foregoing 
contest and will apply to Henry T. Ray, Esq., a notary public in and for the 
Territory of Alaska, residing at Fairbanks, Alaska, for a subpoena to issue to 
each of said following named witnesses, and will take the testimony of each 
of said witnesses at the town of Tanana, Alaska, adjoining Fort Gibbon Post, 
at the public-school building there, beginning at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m. iu 
the forenoon on Tuesday, June 6, 1917, and from day to day thereafter until 
the taking of said testimony is completed ; said testimony will be taken before 
said Henry T. Ray, notary public, and the following named persons who are 
now in garrison at said Fort Gibbon, Alaska, will be subpoenaed and their 
evidence taken on said examination before said officer 'at said time and place 
hereinabove mentioned. The names of the witnesses are Charles E. Feder, 
Nathan C. Hatfield, Hugh T. Phillips, Joseph Grabowski, Thomas F. Galvin, 
Daniel Doherty, William E. Wood, Daniel B. Allen, John D. McNeeley, Orvel 
Jones, Louis G. Selk, Harry F. Clark, Edward J. Toland, John C. Sherlock, 
Sidney Bridgewater. Joseph Drury, Steven Bauer, Michael Sullivan, Cleveland 
Douglas, John H. Davis, Silas Hewitt, Jasper L. Moser, Albert J. Haas, 
Willard J. Shannon, Walter H. Dehas, George W. Pennington, Ralph J. 
McGonigle, Frederick L. Huffman, Lester B. LeGier, Basil Fitzwilliams, Ralph 
C. Wilson. Joseph Barton, Melvin Jones, each of said persons above named 
being an enlisted man in the United States Army on November 7. 1916, the 
date of the last general election in Alaska for the election of a Delegate to 
Congress from said Territory, and each of said persons having voted in said 
Fort Gibbon precinct, after having been duly challenged and having made an 
oath before the election officers of said election to establish his qualifications 
therein as an elector. 

And you are further notified that this contestant will also take the evidence 
in this cause before said Henry T. Ray, notary public, aforesaid, at the city 
hall in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, on Tuesday, June 12, 1917, beginning at 
the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon of said day and continuing from day 
to day until the same is completed, of each enlisted man in the United States 
Army and in the Signal Corps who was on November 7. 1916, stationed in 
Fairbanks, Alaska, and who voted in said precinct on said November 7. 1916, 
at said election ; that the names of said men, except one Coleman, are unknown 
to contestant, but they do not exceed 10 in number, and were at that time en- 
listed men in the said United States Army, stationed in the town of Fairbanks, 
aforesaid. 

Please take notice and have your representative, agent, or attorney present 
at said times and places. 

James Wickersham. 

Contestant. 

W^ashington, D. C, Ma.y 25, 1917. 

Washington, D. C, May 25, 1017. 
On this 25th day of May, 1917. I personally delivered to Charles A. Sulzer, 
the within named contestee, at his office in the House Office Building. Wash- 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEK. ' 199 

ington, D. C, a full, true, and correct copy of the within notice of taking 
testimony. 

In witness whereof I have set my hand and notarial seal hereunto on the 
date hereinabove written. 

[seal.] D. B. Mm L. 

Notary Ptiblic in and for the District of ColumMa. 

NOTICE or TAKING DEPOSITIONS. 

2"o Cliarles A. Snlzer, contestee in the above-entitled proceeding : 

You are hereby notified that the depositions of W. B. Ballou, residence 
Seattle, Wash. ; George Dreibelbis, residence Seattle, Wash. ; .James M. Lathrop, 
residence Seattle, Wash. ; Thomas A. McGowan, residence Fairbanks, Alaska ; 
and James Wickersham, residence Fairbanks, Alaska, but all now in Seattle, 
Wash., and eacii of them, will be taken before Mr. Dwight D. Hartman, a 
notary public in and for the State of Washington, at his office at 306 Burke 
Building, in the city of Seattle, Wash., at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m. on the 
6th day of August, 1917, to be read in evidence in the above entitled proceeding 
on behalf of said James Wickersham, contestant, and that the taking of said 
depositions will be continued from day to day thereafter, and over Sundays and 
other holidays, if any, until the taking of the same shall have been completed. 

You are requested to have your attorney or agent present to cross-examine 
said witnesses. 

Dated this 18th day of July, A. D. 1917. 

James Wickeksham. 

Contestant. 

PROOF OF SEBVICE. 

United States of America, 

District of Columbia, ss: 
GEORGE A. JEFFERY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is a 
male citizen of the United States, over the age of 21 years, and not a party to 
the foregoing contest ; that on the 23d day of July, 1917, he personally served 
a true copy of the within and foregoing notice of taking depositions upon 
Charles A. Sulzer, personally, at Washington, D. C, by delivering said true 
copy thereof to the said Sulzer, personally, on said day. 

George A. .Jeffery. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] M. W. Pickering, 

Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia. 
Commission expires September 19, 1919, 

subpoenas. 

The House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth Congress of the United States, 

greeting: 

To James M. Lathrop, Seattle, Wash. 

You are hereby commanded, by authority of the United States Revised 
Statutes, section 110, to be and appear at Room 306, Burke Building, Seattle, 
Wash., in the county of King, before Dwight D. Hartman. a notary public in 
and for the State of Washington, whose office is at said place, at 10 o'clock in 
the forenoon of the 6th day of August, A. D. 1917, then and there to testify 
as a w^itness on behalf of the above-named contestant in a certain contested 
election case pending before the United States House of Representatives, 
wherein James Wickersham is contestant and Charles A. Sulzer is contestee, 
and to remain in attendance before me until discharged, and herein fail not at 
your peril. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 23d day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Dwight D. Hartman, 

Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

My commission expires on the 28th day of January, 1919. 



200 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

The House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth, Congress of the United States, 

Oreeting: 

To W. B. Ballou, Seattle, Wash. : 

You are hereby commanded, by authority of the United States Revised Stat- 
utes, section 110, to be and appear at Room 306, Burke Building, Seattle, 
Wash., in the county of King, before Dwight D. Hartman, a notary public in 
and for the State of Washington, whose office is at said place, at 10 o'clock in 
the forenoon of the 6th day of August. A. D. 1917, then and there to testify 
as a witness on behalf of the above-named contestant in a certain contested- 
election case pending before the United States House of Representatives, 
wherein James Wickersham is contestant and Charles A. Sulzer is contestee, 
and to remain in attendance before me until discharged ,and herein fail not 
at your peril. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 23d day of July, 1917. 

[sEAi.] Dwight D. Haktman, 

Notary Puhlic in and for the State of Washington, 

residing at Seattle. 

My commission expires on the 28th day of January, 1919. 

The House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth Congress of the United States, 

Greeting: 

To George Deeikelbis, Seattle, Wash. : 

You are hereby commanded, by authority of the United States Revised Stat- 
utes, section 110, to be and appear at Room 306, Burke Building, Seattle, 
Wash., in the county of King, before Dwight D. Hartman, a notary public in 
and for the State of Washington, whose office is at said place, at 10 o'clock in 
the forenoon of the 6th day of August, A. D. 1917, then and there to testify 
as a witness on behalf of the above-named contestant in a certain contested- 
election case pending before the United States House of Representatives, 
wherein James Wickersham is contestant and Charles A. Sulzer is contestee, 
and to remain in attendance before me until discharged, and herein fail not 
at your peril. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 23d day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Dwight D. Haetman, 

Notary PuUic in and for the State of Washington, 

residing at Seattle. 

Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

My commission expires on the 28th day of January, 1919. 

DEPOSITIONS. 

Be it remembered that heretofore and on, to wit. the 6th day of August, 
1917, in pursuance of the annexed and foregoing notice, before the under- 
signed, Dwight D. Hartman, a notary public in and for the State of Wash- 
ington, at his office at 306 Burke Building, in the city of Seattle, Wash., 
beginning at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m. on said day, appeared James M. 
Lathrop, W. B. Ballou, George Dreibelbis, and James Wickersham, the wit- 
nesses named in said notice; the contestant being present in person, and the 
contestee being represented by Robert M. Jones, Esq., his attorney and counsel ; 
whereupon the following proceedings were had and done, to wit: 

JAMES M. LATHROP was duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, and testified as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Mr. Lathrop. how old are you? — A. Fifty-seven years old. 

Q. What is your business? — A. My business is merchant and dock owner in 
Valdez, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you resided in Alaska?— A. A little less than 20 years. 

Q. You were formerly deputy United States marshal up there?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But in recent years you have been engaged in private business?— A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. B. Ballou and Mr. George Dreibelbis? 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 201 

Mr. Jones. On behalf of the contestee, Mr. Sulzer. I wish to object to the 
taking of any testimony from this witness, upon the ground and for the reason 
that he is not a resident of this district but is a resident of some other location. 
May I ask one other question to supplement that objection? 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. Certainly. 

By Mr. Jones : 

Q. What is your residence, Mr. Wickersham? — A. Mv residence is San Dietro 
■Cal. 

By Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. B. Ballon and Mr. George Dreibelbis?— A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jones. May the record show that my objection continues and applies to 
-each and every other further question asked this witness? 

The Witness. I wish to state here that I appear voluntarily. That is to say, 
I am here 

Mr. Jones. But on behalf of the contestee I object to the taking of your testi- 
mony, just the same. 

By Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Where is your office here in the city of Seattle, Mr. Lathrop? — A. 405 Low- 
man Building. 

Q. How long have you had an office there? — A. Four months. 

Q. Have you had any office in the city of Seattle prior to that time? — A. Yes, 
■sir. 

Q. Where?— A. In the Pacific Building. 

Q. For how long a time did you have an office there? — A. I presume about 
eight months. 

Q. What business do you carry on here? — A. What do you keep an office 
for?— A. Well, so as to handle that northern business and have a place to get 
luail. 

Q. What northern business do you have reference to? — A. The Valdez busi- 
ness. The Valdez mercantile and dock business. 

Q. That is a constant business, is it not, year in and year out? — A. In certain 
seasons. 

Q. You have a dock business at Vandez? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And boats run there constantly every month?— A. Yes. I refer to seasons 
as when we buy goods down here. That is the only reason I should be here 
during a portion of the year. 

Q. Have you had no other business in the last year or two except the dock 
"business and the mercantile business? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You have not been engaged in the fisheries business in any way? — A. Well, 
I own stock in a cannery. 

Q. Where is the cannery?— A. At Kodiak. 

Q. Who is interested in that with you? 

Mr. Jones. I object to this on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial and not within the issues in this case, and for the further reason that 
it is not proper rebuttal testimony, which the contestant should be taking at this 
time, and not direct. 

Mr. WiCKEESHAM. The evidence is offered for the purpose of showing his resi- 
dence here in the city of Seattle and his constant connection with his business in 
Alaska. 

By Mr. Wickeesham : 

Q. Have you voted in the last two or three years? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you last vote in Alaska? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. Where do you live in Seattle when you are here? — A. I am living out on 
Harrison Street. 

Q. Whereabouts? — A. At 310 East Harrison. 

Q. It is a hotel? — A. No, sir; it is a furnished house. 

Q. Do you rent the house and live out there yourself? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. I got that house, I think, on the 5th 
of April? 

Q. And you have lived there ever since? — A. I have a lease of it until the 1st 
of November. 

Q. Have you a home in San Diego? — Yes, sir. 

Q. Who lives in that?- — A. Nobody. It is empty noAV. I leave for there In 
November. 



202 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. You live here part of the year and clown there part of the year?— A. Yes 
And ordinarily a portion of the time in Alaska. I own my home down there 
and other property. 

Q. Do you remember an occasion about the 5th or 6th dav of July of this 
year when Mr. Dreibelbis and Mr. Ballou were in your office?^— A. Yes. sir. 

Q. About what date was that? Do you remember?— A. I could not 'fix that 
It is within the last 30 days. 

Q. It was about the .5th or 6th of .July?- A. Probably. I would like to say 
here, in reference to my business, so that it is plain, that I have nothing- to do 
with the fisheries business that has an office here. You asked who is interested 
in that. I have no objection to telling you. 

Q. I didn't ask you anything about that. A. You did ask me who was inter- 
ested with me in that fisheries business. 

Q. Yes; but the question was answered, and it was satisfactory to me. — A 
All right. 

Q. Do you remember having a conversation with Mr. Ballou and Mr. Dreibel- 
bis on that day? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who Avas present, besides you and them? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. Well, was anybody present? — A. I don't think so. 

Q. Did you at that time and in that place, and in the presence of Mr. Ballou 
and Mr. Dreibelbis, discuss with them the matter of the contested election be- 
tween Wickersham and Sulzer in Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To what extent? 

Mr. Jones. I wish to raise another objection at this time, and inasmuch as 
the commissioner has no authority to rule on the admissibility of this testimony, 
I would like to have the objection apply to all the remaining questions that 
maj^ be propounded to Mr. Lathrop. I object to it on the ground that it is 
incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, not within the issues here, and upon the 
further ground that it is not proper rebuttal testimony. 

Q. To what extent? — A. I have several conversations. Mr. Dreibelbis is an 
old friend of mine from the North, and we generally discussed that and a 
great many other subjects. 

Q. Did you, at that time and place, and in their presence, say substantially : 
" We have just sent $500 to Juneau to fight Wickersham in his contest against 
Sulzer?" — A. No, sir. 

Q. Or anything of that kind? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, what did you say? — A. I said it was reported to me that there were 
election frauds at Seldovia, Kodiak, and Afognak, and that I would willingly 
pay $500 at any time to establish fraud in an election contest. 

Q. Well, was it true that you did take up any money at any time for any pur- 
pose in connection with those elections? — A. No, sir. You say in connection 
with the elections? 

Q. I mean in connection Avith the contest? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Or in connection with the election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When? — A. I sent a subscription for myself a long time ago. 

Q. When? — A. Last summer sometime. 

Q. About September or October? Prior to the election on November 7. 
1916?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To whom did you send it? — ^A. I sent it to Mr. Donahue. 

Q. To Mr. Thomas Jefferson Donahue, Democratic national committeeman? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At Valdez?— A. At Valdez. 

Q. Is he vour attorney up there? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How much did you send him?— A. I don't think that is a fair question to 
ask me. Still, I don't mind answering it. Tom asked me for a subscription 
and I sent him $100. 

Q. Do you know of any other money being sent to him from anybody here? — 
A. I sent him a small subscription from another man. 

Q. Who was the other man? — A. That I shall not answer, sir. 

Q. How much was that subscription? — A. The sum total, I think, was $300. 
The only reason I don't mention this man's name is that it is his business, not 
mine, if it was myself, I would tell you, but I am not the custodian for what 
he should say. 

Q. Is it not true, Mr. Lathrop, that you were very active in taking up sub- 
scriptions prior to the election last fall and sending them to Alaska for use in 
that election? — A. No. sir. Tom Donahue Avas doAvn here, and asked me to 
assist him in getting whatever money I could get. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 203 

Q. You decline to tell where you got that other $200? — A. Yes, sir. To you; 
yes, sir. 

Q. YoiT are not telling it to me. You are telling it to the House of Representa- 
tives now. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any other money being taken up that way? — A. Not per- 
sonally ; no, sir. 

Q. Don't you know that a great deal of other money was taken up among 
other men interested in the fisheries and cannery business and sent up there 
to Alaska in the same way ? — A. Not personally ; no, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether there was a large sum of money taken up in the 
name of the saloon element and sent up there for use, or not? — A. I know of 
no money being sent up there other than that to which I have referred. 

Q. Other than that $300?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say you have taken up no money since the election on November 
7. 1916, for any purpose in connection with that election or with the contest? — ■ 
A. Not a 5-cent piece. 

Q. And you know of none? — -A. And I know of none, and have never dis- 
cussed any such point with anybody. 

Q. You didn't say to these gentlemen what I asked you or the substance 
of it? — A. No, sir. I said that I would be willing to put up $500 at any time 
to establish any crime that is as bad as I think a fake election business is, 
because I have seen too much of it. 

Cross examination by Mr. Jones.: 

Q. Mr. Lathrop, the statement that you say you made to Mr. Dreibelbis and 
Mr. Ballon concerning your willingness to give money for the uncovering of 
frauds in certain precincts in Alaska — in whose favor did you understand those 
frauds had beeu committed? — A. Well, I know very little about it, except what 
I mentioned in this conversation, that people from Kodiak told me that a lot 
of fraudulent votes were cast, and I will tell Judge Wickersham, to show how 
much interest I had in the election, that niy Kodiak people asked me at that 
time who I was in favor of, as a matter of fact, as I had never been interested 
enough to even let them know. 

Mr. Wickersham. You didn't have any doubt about it, did you? — A. No, to 
tell the truth. Judge, I didn't. 

By Mr. Jones : 
Q. Did you know of any money being collected here or elsewhere for Mr. 
Wickersham? — A. I never heard any money matter discussed with anybody. 
I have never been asked for money from any source. I have never heard any- 
body speak about it. I have not been in consultation with anybody about any 
point of the kind. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. What was it that Mr. Donahue told you about fraud there, Mr. Lathrop? — • 
A. Mr. Donahue had not told me anything about fraud. 

Q. You said somebody talked to you about frauds, etc. — A. In a general con- 
versation in the office of the Kodiak Fisheries Co. ; there were a number of 
people from Kodiak present. 

Q. When was that? — A. That was this spring. 

Q. Before the election? — A. No; this spring. 

Q. This spring after the election? — A. Yes, sir; they were in there. 

Q. Who was it? — A. There was Mr. Blodgett, ]\Ir. Blinn, and Mr. Clay, and 
in general conversation they told me that all the tribal natives were voted. I 
never even communicated that to anybody, except in a general conversation 
with these gentlemen. 

Q. What else did they say had been committed in the way of fraud? — A. I 
can't recall the conversation with half a dozen men mixed up in it. 

Q. Well, tell us the substance of it. — A. Well, I remember they said some- 
thing about some people there that used some kind of a frame, put over tickets 
with apertures, where they could only be put in a certain place to be voted. It 
didn't attract my attention so much that I remember exactly what was said. 

Q. That so shocked you that you subscribed $100 yourself, and got $200 
more? — A. I beg your pardon. That was this spring. Those men have put up 
nothing, and I didn't communicate those facts to anybody else, except in a 
friendly conversation to these gentlemen — at least, I thought it was. 

Q. Was that all the fraud that those men talked to you about out there? — 
A. Thev mentioned Kodiak, Seldovia. and Afnogak. 



204 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Q. And that these tribal natives had been voted there? — A. Yes, sir; and 
that there was some mechanical means used by which they voted right. 

Q. You know that Blodgett and Blinn and Clay have been very active out 
there, do you not, in partisan politics, themselves? — A. No, sir; I do not. If 
they had been, there would have been a change of vote. 

Q. Don't you know that they were witnesses out there recently? — A. No, sir. 

Q. And that Mr. Donahue had them examined about these matters? — A. No, 
sir ; and I don't think they were active. 

Q. As a matter of fact, they are your partners in your fisheries concern, are 
they not? — A. They are stockholders in the fisheries concern. 

Q. You are very intimately associated with them? — A. Yes, sir; but I never 
had any conversation with them about this matter, or never communicated 
with them about it before the election. That shows how little interest I had 
in it. 

Q. Yes ; but you know I got only about 7 votes out of about 200 two 
years ago, don't you? — A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. You yourself know those natives out there, don't you? — A. I have been 
there. 

Q. You have been there? — A. Yes ; but I don't know the natives out there 
at all. 

Q. Don't you know that those natives out there are all Russians and Russian 
half-breeds," and that they are all intermarried? — A. I suppose they are all 
mixed. 

Q. Don't you know that Kodiak, Seldovia, and Afognak are three old Russian 
stations, and that the people there are intermixed and inmarried with Rus- 
sians? — A. I presume so. I don't know. 

Q. Don't you know that they all belong to the Russian Church out there, 
and live with the Russians, and amongst them, and are half-breeds? — A. Most 
of them ; yes, sir. 

Q. Don't you know that they live substantially like the other Russians out 
there do live? — A. I dont' know that. Judge. 

Q. Don't you know that they have Russian churches out there? — A. Yes, 
sir; I have heen in those towns. 

Q. You have been in the Russian churches there, too, haven't you? — A. I 
haven't been in the outlying districts at all. 

Q. I am talking about Kodiak, Seldovia. and Afognak. There are Russian 
churches in each one of those places? — A. There are in Kodiak and Seldovia. 

Q. Is there not a Russian church in Afnognak also? — A. I could not say as 
to that. 

Q. You could not sav for sure about that? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Dont' you know, as a matter of fact, that those people are all Intermixed 
with Russians, and are of Russian blood? — A. No; I don't know that. 

Q. Well, very largely, is that not true? — A. Well. I read Dalles's Alaska on 
those races there * 

Q. Dalles's Alaska was published about 40 or 50 years ago? — A. Y^es ; and 
some of those people were born that long ago and longer. I have never known 
what the Aleut race was. I have often thought I would like to ask you. 

Q. The Aleut race is entirely intermarried and intermixed with the Russians 
out there, and has been aboixt a hundred years at Seldovia, Afognak, and 
Kodiak? — A. I presume so. 

Q. How many times have you been out there? — A .1 have been twice to Kodiak, 
three times to Selvodia, and once to Afognak. 

Q. Your opinion now is that if Blodgett and Blinn and Clay had known how 
close the election was going to be there I would not have gotten so many votes 
there? ^ . , 

Mr. Jones. I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I didn't say that. 

Q. I understood you to say that?— A. No, sir. , ^ , ^ 

Q. What did vou say in that regard?— A. I did say that if Mr. Blodgett had 
been verv active there would have been a change of vote. I am simply stating 
that to show that he was not active, and that I was not active or interested 
in the election. That was largely in answer to your question whether I didn t 
have much interest in the election. I didn't have enough interest to ask Mr 
Blodgett about it. I don't know whether he would have repeated it or not. I 
have got no strings on Mr. Blodgett. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. * 205 

Recross-examination by Mr. Jones : 

Q. Have you any special knowledge, Mr. Lathrop, of conditions of inter- 
mingling of blood in Alaska prior to the time you went there, between the 
Russians and natives in these precincts — Kodiak, Afognak, and Seldovia? — A. 
Any special knowledge? 

Q. Yes. — A. No, sir. 

Q. You have never made any study of it, have you? — A. No. 

Q. Do you feel competent to answer a general question as to whether or not 
the people In those vicinities are of mixed blood, or of what kind of blood or 
mixture they may be? — ^A. No, sir. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Wickeesham : 

Q. You say you have been reading Dalles's book on that subject? — A. You 
don't want the stenographer to put all this conversation down, do you? 

Q. Yes ; we want him to write it all down. 

A. Yes. I have read Dalles and everything else I could get on the subject. 

Q. You have been very much interested in the subject? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you know thnt all the authorities say that the natives there are 
intermarried with the Russians? — A. Not all the authorities. As a general 
rule, I find that pretty nearly every book I read has different ideas, but gen- 
erally, I believe they say that these natives are mixed with the Russians. 

Q. And generally they belong to the Russian church out there, and some of 
their half-breeds are priests in the church, and officers in the church? You 
know that, don't you? — -A. No; I don't know whether they are half-breeds or 
not. The priest that I knew best out there — where was he? He was a French- 
man, I think, and he told me his business prior to being a priest was advance 
agent for a circus. 

Q. That interested you? — A. Very much. I asked him why he changed. 
Judge. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Jones : 

Q. Are the natives there in that country around these three precincts above 
referred to, connected with the Russian Church? — A. I don't know, sir. I 
don't know. 

Q. The Russian Church was there, though, years before the Americans went 
into that country? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was the only church there? — A. I guess so. 

Q. There is no particular significance as to a man's blood, that he happens 
to be an adherent of some particular Christian faith? — A. No. I don't quite 
get that question. 

Q. I mean that merely because an Indian or some native in Alaska happens 
to be a member of the Russian Church is no evidence in itself that he is an ad- 
herent of or has Russian blood in him? — A. No, sir. 

James M. Latheop. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1917. 
[seal.] D wight D. Hartman, 

Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

W. B. BALLOU, called as a witness by the contestant, was duly sworn to 
testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and testified as 
follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. Wickeesham : 

Q. Mr. Ballon, how old are you? — A. I am 48 years old. 

Q. How long have you resided in Alaska? — A. About 18 j^ears. 

Q. Where have you resided? — A. At Rampart. 

Q. When did you come out? — A. Last fall. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Lathrop, who was just on the stand? — A. Yes, sir; I 
have met him once. 

Q. Were you in his office with Mr. Dreibelbis about the 5th or 6th of July of 
this year? — A. I can not say just the date, but somewhere along there— the 5th, 
6th, 7th, or 8th. I forget now just the date. 

Q. Now, in reference to this conversation that he testified to, were you 
present when that conversation was had? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Lathrop make the statement that I asked him about? — 
A. Well 



206 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Yes or no. You either did or did not hear it. — A. Yes ; I heard it. 

Q. I wish you would state as nearly as you can exactly what he said in 
I'eference to the matter that I asked him about. — A. Well, the conversation was 
between Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Dreibelbis, and as nearly as I can recollect it the 
conversation started in something this way : Mr. Dreibelbis made some remark 
about you being here in the city on your way to Alaska to contest this election, 
and George Dreibelbis said that he thought you stood a pretty good chance to 
beat it. and Mr. Lathrop said, " No ; he does not stand any show. We have just 
sent up $5(X) to attend to that matter." 

Mr. Jones. I move that this testimony be stricken upon the grounds that it is 
incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, has reference to something that took place 
long after this election which is now contested in this matter, and for the 
further i-eason that it is not proper rebuttal testimony. May that objection con- 
tinue to all further questions and answers propounded to this witness? 

Q. Did he say anything about whom he meant by " we " have sent up $500? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. He didn't mention any names in that connection? — A. Not that I remember. 

Q. Did he say to whom the money had been sent? — A. No, sir. 

Q. This conversation occurred the first part of July of this year 1917, about 
a month ago ? — A. About a month ago ; yes, sir ; not quite a month ago. 

Q. I wish you would state again as nearly as you can what he said about 
.sending this money up. — A. Well, as nearly as I can recollect he said : " We 
have just sent up .$.500 to attend to that matter." 

Q. What matter was it? — A. In regard to your contest of the election. 

Q. And he expressed his opposition to my efforts in the matter? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. "Was he friendly to Mr. Sulzer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And so expressed himself? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he say in that connection? — A. Well, he said that he didn't think 
that you stood any show in regard to this contest, and then the conversation 
went on to other matters. 

Q. Well, had he made any statements prior to that which showed whether or 
not he was friendly to me or to Mr. Sulzer that you remember of? — A. I can't 
recollect just what they were, but he gave me the impression that he was 
friendly to Mr. Sulzer. 

Q. He didn't say to whom this .$.500 was sent? — A. I don't think so. 

Q. Did he mention where it was sent? — A. No. 

Q. Did he say whether it was sent to Juneau or not? — ^A. No. 

Q. That it was just sent to Alaska? Was that the understanding? — A. That 
it was sent up ; sent up there. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Jokes : 

Q. Do you have any recollection that it was stated in any part t)f this con- 
versation" that you heard where it was sent from? — A. No; I don't think I do. 
There was something said in regard to taking some affidavits up there, and my 
impression was that it was going up where those affidavits were taken. 

Q. Where was that? — A. I can't remember where he said those affidavits were 
being taken. 

Q. You were not paying very much attention? — A. No; I was not paying very 
much attention to that. 

Q. You were not interested in it? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you hear any statements made about the frauds committed at Sel- 
dovia. Afognak, and Kodiak at the time this conversation was had? — A. No; I 
didn't hear anything about it then. I had heard about it before. I had heard 
about it from other sources. 

Q. You didn't hear it mentioned in that conversation, though, in the course of 
this conversation between Mr. Dreibelbis and Mr. Lathrop? — A. In regard to 
these affidavits? 

Q. No; in regard to frauds committed at Kodiak, Seldovia. or Afognak? — 
A. No : the only reference to it was that they were taking the affidavits at those 
places. 

Q. These are the places where the affidavits were taken? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That recalls those places to your mind — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you positive in your own mind, Mr. Ballon, that the statement Mr. 
Lathrop just made here, that he said he would give $500 to unearth or prosecute 
the frauds at these places, was not the statement that he made in this conversa- 
tion? — A. I don't think that that was the statement that he made at that time. 
I am positive it was not. 



WICKEESHAM YS. SULZEE. \ 207 

Q. What was there about the occasion to impress his exact words upon rour 
memory? — A. Nothing. 

Q. You didn't Ivuow him? — A. I was not acquainted with him before I was 
introduced to him in that conversation. 

Q. Did you vote in Alasi^a? — A. I did up until last June. 

Q. Did you vote there last fall? — A. No. 

Q. Naturally, of course, you had some interest in this election? — A. Oh, yes. 

Q. You were a partisan of Mr. Wickersham. the contestant here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember any other conversations you had that day on this 
subject? — A. Not on this subject; no. sir. 

Q. What was it that impressed upon you Mr. Lathrop's exact language? — 
A. Well, nothing, only just the fact that he had sent such a large sum as that 
up there for this purpose. 

Q. And in this discussion reference was made to Seldovia. Kodiak, and Afog- 
nak? — A. But that was before he made that statement. 

Q. And to the frauds committed there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you gather from his conversation in whose favor he thought the 
frauds had been committed? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In whose favor were they? — ^A. They were in favor of Mr. Wickersham. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Wickeesham : 
Q. That conversation was at the same time that you heard him make this 
other statement? — A. Yes, sir. 

W. B. BALLor. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1917. 
[seal.] Dwight D. Haktman, 

Xotary Public for the State of M'asJiington, residing at Seattle. 

GEORGE DREIBELBIS, called as a witness by the contestant herein, was 
duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole tiiith, and nothing but the truth, and 
testified as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. WiCKESSHAii : 

Q. Mr. Dreibelbis, how old are you? — A. Fifty-three. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Alaska has been my residence for the last IS 
years. 

Q. You are acquainted with Mr. James IVI. Lathrop. who was just on the wit- 
ness stand? — ^A. I am. 

Mr. Jones. I interpose an objection to the taking of Mr. Dreibelbis's testimony 
here upon the ground that he is not a resident of this district, as required by the 
statute. 

By Mr, Wickersham : 

Q. How long have you known Mr. Lathi-op? — A. I have kno^^^l him since about 
1905. 

Q. You and he were both formerly in the service of the Department of Justice 
in 1905? — A. He was otRce deputy at Valdez. and I was office deputy marshal at 
Fairbanks. 

Q. And you have kno^^^l him somewhat intimately ever since? — A. Oh, yes. 

Q. Were you in his office with Mr. Ballon on the day that Mr. Lathrop and 
Mr. Ballon have both mentioned, in July of this year? — ^A. I was. 

Q. Did you hear the conversation that was carried on there by and between 
Mr. Lathrop and you and Mr. Ballon? — A. Yes. 

Q. I wish you would state what was said in that conversation with respect to 
the matter of the contest between Wickersham and Sulzer over the delegateship 
in Alaska. 

Mr. JoxES. I wish to interpose an objection to this and all other questions that 
may be propounded to this witness upon the ground that it is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, immaterial, inadmissible, not within the issues in this case, and that it is 
not proper rebuttal testimony. 

A. The conversation was general, and. in fact, from my point of view, it was 
northern gossip, in a way. We were discussing the contest, which was of inter- 
est to Mr. Ballon and Mr. Lathrop and myself, and I remarked to the effect that 
I believed Mr. Wickersham stood a show of winning out in the contest, and Mr. 
Lathrop said '• not a chance." He said, '" We have just sent up $500 to cover 
that matter." The conversation I considered of no importance, that we were 



208 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 

merely talking, and the exact words I could not be confident of, whether he- 
said " we " or " I " ; but the matter of $500 going up, of that I am just certain. 

Q. And that it had just gone? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. He did not say to whom it was being sent? — A. No. 

Q. But it was being sent in connection with this contest? — A. That would 
have to be inferred from the remark that had gone before. But later on in the 
conversation, after other matters had come up, Mr. Lathrop made the remark 
about illegal voting in Kodiak, and my inference was that the money was being 
sent up for legitimate purposes in reference to taking -affidavits in the contest 
at Kodiak. 

Q. But he didn't say that? — A. He didn't say it. The conversation was not 
connected. That is, the remarks were not connected. This was all in one con- 
versation, and to sort of illuminate the whole proposition, I will say this: 
That I think Mr. Ballon and Mr. Lathrop will both, when they come to think 
the matter over thoroughly, realize that the conversation really did not take 
place in the office, but that it took place while we were leaving the office and 
going over to another place, and that it took place on the street while we were 
on our way to the other place, but it was while we were all together. 

Q. It was while you were all together? — A. While we were all together; 
yes, sir. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Jones : 

Q. There was during this conversation, which you say took place while you 
were leaving Mr. Lathrop's office, and on your way to another place, and neces- 
sarily of short duration, some reference to the alleged frauds at Kodiak and 
Seldovia? — A. Yes. It was my first intimation that there was any contest on 
the voting in Kodiak, and it came from Mr. Lathrop. 

Q. And your general impression was that Mr. Lathrop, as a partisan and a 
friend of Mr. Sulzer. was sending or had sent money there to unearth or 
prosecute these frauds? — A. That was my impression. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Wickeesham : 

Q. Do you know Mr. Blodgett? — A. I met him once. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Blinn? — A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. You know generally that they live there at Kodiak and are connected 
with Mr. Lathrop in the fisheries business out there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he say anything about them in that connection? — A. Nothing at all. 

Q. Their names were not mentioned? — A. They were not mentioned. The only 
mention there was in reference to Kodiak was with reference to the voting of 
the Indians there. 

Q. Did he say anything about Avhere this money was to be sent, to Juneau 
or any place? — A. No. I am almost positive that he did not, although he 
might have. He simply said " We have sent $500 to take care of that matter." 

Q. And that had reference to the taking of these affidavits or depositions or 
whatever they were? — A. Without the preceding conversation, and the conver- 
sation following it, I could not infer that. 

Q. But taking it all together? — A. Taking it all together, I understood that the 
money was to be sent to take affidavits in connection with the illegal voting. 

Geo. Dreibelbis. 

Sul)scriV)ed and sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1917. 

[seal.] Dwight D. Hartman, 

Notary Public for tJie State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

JAMES WICKEKSHAM, the contestant herein, was duly sworn to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and testified as follows : 

The Witness. I returned on Saturday from Craig. Alaska, where I had been 
notified by Mr. Sulzer to go and attend the taking of a large number of deposi- 
tions of Indians and half-breeds M'ho i-eside in that precinct, and who were said 
in the notice to have been refused by the election officers the right to vote. I 
went to Craig and attended the taking of the depositions, before Mr. Winston. 
a notary public residing at Ketchikan. Mr. Holzheimer, an attorney from 
Ketchikan, and one of the United States assistant district attorneys also went 
on the trip from Ketchikan to Craig, and while Mr. Holzheimer did not enter 
his appearance in the record formally, he sat behind a Mr. Sellers and pro- 
l)ounded questions through Mr. Sellers to the witnesses. But two natives or In- 
dains mentioned in the noice to me were produced as witnesses. The others failed 
to appear and be sworn, although the parties there representing Mr. Sulzer 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. % 209 

had scoured the country in a small gasoline launch under the guidance of a 
Mr. Hibbs, Government teacher at Klawock Indian Reservation, searching for 
them. Mr. Hibbs is the Government school-teacher at Klawock, and has been 
giving a very great deal of his attention to politics, especially to making the 
fight against me there for Mr. Sulzer in connection with the natives at that 
point. The testimony with respect to that was all taken in the record made 
there. On my return from Craig I stopped at the Indian village of Hydaburg. 
The village of Hydaburg is inhabited entirely by Indians, except there are a 
Government school-teacher and his wife who reside there, and a Presbyterian 
minister by the name of Hawk, I think, also resides there. It is an Indian 
town, and is inhabited by Haida Indians. The Haida Indians who reside tliQre 
mre British Columbia Indians, and either they or their parents were born on 
Queen Charlottes Island, from which point they emigrate'd to Alaska within recent 
years. These people are all Haidas, and drove out the native Alaska Klingits 
from the villages on the south end of Prince of Wales Island and in that 
vicinity, and are now in possession pf those villages. About 35 of these Indians 
from Hydaburg voted at Sulzer post office in the Sulzer precinct on November 7, 
1916, at the general election held for the election of a Delegate from the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, and each and everyone of them voted for Mr. Sulzer. I ascer- 
taind this fact more particularly upon inquiry as to the number of votes cast 
there and for whom. There were 78 votes cast at Sulzer, of which 76 were 
cast for Mr. Sulzer and 2 for James Wickersham. Mr. Aaron Shellhouse, a long- 
time resident of the town of Sulzer, was one of the two who voted for me, and 
i was informed of the name and residence of the other person who voted for me, 
who was not an Indian. 

I am well acquainted with the people of Kodiak, Seldovia, and Afnogak. and 
have given a very great deal of attention to the historj^ and character of the 
residents there. I was United States district judge in Alaska for eight years.. 
and in my official capacity I visited those places and met the people, consulted 
with them, and became acquainted with them. Since that time, as a candidate 
for Delegate, I have given much attention to the same subject, and have 
extended my acquaintance among them by correspondence and otherwise.- I 
have also given the matter of the ethnology of the people of the Pacific coast 
of Alaska a very great deal of attention, officially and otherwise, and especially 
in the case of In re Minook (2 Alaska Repts., 200), a case decided by me 
while I was district judge in Alaska, where I had to determine the status of 
t;hose people officially and with great care. Kodiak was the first Russian cai^ital 
of Alaska, and was settled about 1785. A Russian church was built there soon 
after that date, and schools were established. The Russians who came to 
Russian America in that time were almost invariably men, very few Russian 
women ever coming to Alaska. The men universally married among the Aleuts. 
\yith whom they lived and with whom they carried on the fur-trading and 
fur-gathering business. The Aleuts during more than 100 ye;irs since have 
almost entirely become Russianized. They all belong to the Russian Church 
and attend the services of that church. They were made citizens of Russian 
America by the ukase of the Czar in 1844, and were made citizens of the 
United States by the treaty of purchase of March 30, 1867. They have been 
permitted to vote from the date of the first Delegate election in Alaska until 
the last, and in the case of Minook, and in other cases of that kind, the courts, 
have held them to be citizens of the United States, entitled to all the rights., 
privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States under the treaty. 
There is every diiference from an ethnological and legal standpoint between 
the people who reside at Kodiak, xA-fnognk, and Seldovia — that is, the Russian- 
ized native people who live in those villages and who voted at the last elec- 
tion— and the natives who voted from Hydaburg and who are said to have 
desired to vote from Klawock. The Indians at these two last-named places 
are neither members of the Russian Church nor were they intermarried with 
the Russians. They are generally full-blood Indians, although there are ft."e-' 
quently crosses between natives and white men, who seem to have resided a 
brief space of time in that vicinity, but who never settled there. The Hydaburg: 
Indians are British Columbia Indians, and the Klawocks are Klingits, but 
neither of them was ever guaranteed the rights of citizenship under the treaty 
of 1867. 

I asked Mr. Lathrop during his examination questions about taking up funds 
here in the city of Seattle to fraudulently carry the elections in Alaska for 
Delegate last fall, because I had been informed that large sums had been 
raised through moneys donated by the big transportation companies and some 

13289—17 U 



210 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

of the large fisheries companies here in the city of Seattle to control the 
election in Alaska against me. Last year I brought a suit for the Sampson 
Hardware Co. in Fairbanks, Alaska, against the Alaska transportation com- 
panies, including the Copper River i^ Northwestern Railroad Co.. the Alaska 
Steamship Co., the White Pass »fe Yukon Route, and other big transportation 
companies doing business in Alaska, for a reduction of freight rates, and the 
matter was pending during the whole summer of 1916 and up to the time of 
the election. These gentlemen were very largely interested in that suit and 
were very bitter in their denunciation of me for having brought it. Mr. .James 
M. Lathrop, who was just on the witness stand, was made a party to that suit 
and was one of the transportation interests who did all he could to defeat 
me in the election and who took up subscriptions for the Sulzer campaign 
fund in Alaska. Another fund was collected at that time by W. F. Thompson, 
the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and by Mr, Thomas A. McGowan, 
the attorney for the White Pass & Yukon Route, and also for the Northern 
Commercial Co. and the Northern Navigation Co. The firm of McGowan & 
Clark were general attorneys in Alaska for the Northern Navigation Co., the 
Northern Connnercial Co., and the White Pass & Yukon Route, corporations. 
Thompson and McGowan came out to San Francisco and to Seattle in the sum- 
mer of 1916 and took up a large collection from those who were interested 
in that election, and it was used in the election to secure my defeat. I have 
here a letter signed by Thompson, which I will introduce in the record. It is 
dated Fairbfjnks, Alaska, September 12, 1916, and is a printed letter. At 
the bottom of this letter is a communication in handwriting signed " W. F.," 
and addressed to Charles E. Heron, of Anchorage, Alaska, who gave me the 
letter. I know Thompson's handwriting and his signature, and I am satisfied 
beyond any doubt that this handwriting is the actual handwriting of W. P. 
Thompson, the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. I offer it in evidence 
in this case, ask that it be attached to my deposition and made a part thereof 
and verified therewith, and forwarded to the House of Representatives as part 
of my testimony. 

Mr. .Jones. I wish to object to it on the ground that it is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, not the best evidence, and that there is no proof given to 
substantiate its authenticity or to show who wrote it or by whom it was sent, 

(The letter identified by the witness is hereto appended and marked "Con- 
testant's Exhibit A.") 

The Witness. This matter purports to be an appeal by Thompson to the 
newspapers he has bribed in Alaska to 

]Mr. .Jones. I wish to enter the further objection that the letter speaks for 
itself, if it is properly in evidence, and, if it is not, any comment on what it 
contains is improper. 

The Witness (continuing). To support the wet side of the campaign then 
pending against the referendum vote in favor of prohibition, but as a matter 
of fact, Mr. IMcGowan, who is mentioned therein, was the Democratic candi- 
date for senator from the Fairbanks or fourth division in the Territory of 
Ahiska to the Territorial Legislature, while Thompson was notoi'iously the 
agent of the White Pass & Yukon Route corporations. Some time not long pre- 
vious to the time when this letter was written I had a conversation with 
Thompson at Fairbanks, in which he told me that he was then receiving from 
the White Pass & Yukon Railway a regular salary of $150 per month for the 
control of his paper, and I also knew at that time from him and from other 
official record sources that the Northern Commercial Co. and the Northern 
Navigation Co., united or one for the other, had an interest in his paper, in 
the ownership, or by an advance of money to him for its use, and a mortgage 
in return. Thompson and McGowan collected, I am informed, $10,000 on this 
trip outside for the purpose of supporting Mr. Sulzer and defeating me at the 
election, and this money was expended very largely in controlling the press in 
the Territory. The Ketchikan Progressive Miner editor had just previously 
made an applicaion to me for money, which I declined to give him, whereupon 
he was employed by Thompson and paid $350, and he did everything he could 
thereafter to support Mr. Sulzer and oppose me. The Juneau Daily Empire, 
of which Mr. John W. Troy is the editor, was also paid a consideration in that 
connection, although the paper was supporting Mr. Sulzer without the pay- 
ment of this money, but it was very useful in that work. Eleven newspapers 
in the Territory of Alaska out of, I think, 16 were paid portions of this bribe 
fund put up by these corporations, and every one of the 11 that stayed bought 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 211 

fought me to a finish and supported Mr. Sulzer. Many of these newspapers 
previously supported me, and undoubtedly would have continued to do so if 
they had not been bribed by Thompson and McGowan for the big corporations. 

The moneys collected by Mr. James W. Lathrop here in the city of Seattle 
and the money collected by Thompson and McGowan were all used for the 
same purpose, to wit, to promote the election of Mr. Sulzer, and very largely 
because of the fact that I had sought to restrain the fishing interests in Alaska 
and the big transportation companies from overcharging the people in freight 
rates. I may say that Mr. Charles E. Heron gave me the letter which I have 
introduced in evidence here, and which is marked "Contestant's Exhibit A," 
and that his paper, the Anchorage Times, supported me and refused to accept 
the money offered by the big corporations. There were three or four other 
papers in the Territory that likewise declined to receive this money, I am in- 
formed. 

When the Alaska canvassing board, consisting of the governor, the secretary 
of the Territory, and the collector of customs, canvassed the returns of the 
votes cast at the election of November 7, 1916, they declared that I had been 
reelected as Delegate from the Territory of Alaska over Sulzer by 31 plurality 
over him. Immediately Mr. Sulzer brouglit a suit in the district court at 
Juneau before Judge Robert E. Jennings, district judge, and Judge Jennings 
issued a mandamus and injunction against the canvassing board, and finally 
commanded and compelled the board to reject and not count the votes cast 
in Choggiung and Nushagak precincts, where I had majorities, and by the 
throwing out of which I was defeated. The ground for throwing out the re- 
turns from those precincts was that the election oflicers had not made a 
certificate showing why the Territorial form of ballot had not been used in- 
stead of the Congressional or written form. It was alleged that the Terri- 
torial form of ballot was not used, and that therefore tliere was fraud. 

I now offer in evidence a statement signed by the judges of tlie election in 
the Nusliagak precinct, which is within the Dillingham precinct in the dis- 
trict of Bristol Bay, Alaska, showing that the Territorial or alleged official 
ballots did not reach those precincts prior to the date of election. This state- 
ment is signed by the judges of the election, by the postmaster, and by the 
Government school-teacher tliere, and sets forth the facts. I ask to have it 
marked as an exhibit and attached to my deposition and made a part thereof. 

Mr. Jones. I desire to object to it on the ground that it is not the best evi- 
dence, that it is hearsay, that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
not within the issues here, and upon the further ground that it is not proper 
rebuttal. I wish that objection also to apply to the explanatory statement of 
Judge Wickersham in offering the letter in evidence. 

(The letter identified by the witness, dated "Dillingham, Alaska, May 5, 
1917," addressed " Hon. James Wickersham, Washington, D. C," is hereto ap- 
pended and marked "Contestant's Exhibit B.") 

The Witness. I also offer in evidence a written statement signed by Adolf 
Osterhaus, one of the judges of the election in that precinct, in regard to the 
same matter, and ask to have it marked as an exhibit in the case and attached 
to my deposition and made a part thereof. 

Mr. Jones. I desire to object to its introduction on the ground that it l3 
not the best evidence, that it is hearsay, that it is incompetent, irrelevant, im- 
material, not within the issues here, and upon the further ground that it is 
not proper rebuttal. 

(The letter identified by the witness, dated "Dillingham, Alaska, May 5 
1917," addressed " Hon. James Wickersham, Washington, D. C," signed 
"Adolf Osterhaus," is hereto appended and marked "Contestant's Exhibit C") 

The Witness. On the day prior to the election at Tanana and on November 6, 
1916, the date before the general election on November 7, 1916, I received a 
telegram from one of my friends at Tanana, Alaska, informing me that it was 
the intention of the Sulzer people there to vote the soldiers. I offer that tele- 
gram in evidence and ask that it be marked as an exhibit and made a part of 
my testimony and attached to my deposition. 

Mr. Jones. I make the same objection to this that I made to the last offer, 
with the added objection that this is very obviously hearsay. 

(The telegram identified by the witness dated "Tanana, Alaska, Nov. 
5-6, 1916," addressed " Judge Wickersham, Cordova," reading, " Please wire 
immediately if enlisted soldiers who have been stationed here two years can 
vote at territorial election. They have resided on military reservation entire 



212 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

time. Nigger in woodpile," and signed " Joseph Aniscich," is liereto appended 
and marked "Contestant's Exhibit D.") 

The Witness. After Judge Jennings had elected Mr, Sulzer to Congress, and 
Mr. Sulzer had gone to Washington with the certificate of election issued by 
Judge Jennings, and had taken his seat as a Delegate, I began this contest. 
As a part of the proceedings in the contest I gave Mr. Sulzer written notice in 
Washington of the taking of the depositions of something more than 30 soldiers 
enlisted in the Army of the United States, and who were stationed at Fort 
Gibbon, adjoining the town of Tansnia, and who voted in the Fort Gibbon pre- 
cinct on election day. The entire management of the election machinery 
in that vicinity was in the hands of Charles E. Bunnell, United States district 
judge of the fourth division, and who was a candidate aganist me for Delegate 
from Alaska in 1914, and whom I defeated. Mr. Bunnell was thereafter ap- 
pointed United States district judge, and, having the appointment of all the 
commissioners in his division, who in turn had the appointment of all the 
electon officers, he and the other Federal officials there had entire charge of 
the election. Fort Gibbon precinct was cut oE from the Tanana precinct, 
although they lay side by side, and the soldiers were all permitted to vote in 
the Fort Gibbon precinct, where the Army post is located. I gave Mr. Sulzer 
notice of the taking of these depositions and named Mr. Henry T. Ray, of 
Fairbanks, as notary public to go down to Fort Gibbon and take these deposi- 
tions. Mr. Ray went down and the soldiers very largely declined to testify, and 
on May 30, pending the taking of these depositions, Mr. Ray sent me a telegram 
notifying me of the difficulty he was having there. This is the telegram I re- 
ceived from Mr. Ray, and I ask to have it marked as an exhibit and attached 
to and mde a part of my deposition. 

Mr. Jones. I make the same general objection as was made to the last offers. 
(The telegram identified by the witness, dated "Fairbanks, Alaska, May 30, 
1917," addressed " James Wickersham, Tacoma, Wash,." and signed " H. T. 
Ray," is hereto attached and marked "Contestant's Exhibit E.") 

The Witness. At bout the same time I gave Mr. Sulzer notice of the taking 
of these depositions. I wrote a letter to the Secretary of War advising him of all 
the necessary facts in the case and asking him to require the enlisted men at 
Fort Gibbon to appear before the notary public and give their testimony. The 
time for taking this testimony was in May, and my letter was written on May 
25. On June 9 I received an answer from the War Department, signed by 
William M. Ingraham, Assistant Secretary of War, in which he notified me 
that instructions had been forwarded to Fort Gibbon to the commanding officer 
to require the enlisted men to appear in answer to the subpoena and give tes- 
timony. I offer this letter in evidence, ask to have it marked as an exhibit, 
attached to my deposition and made a part thereof. 
Mr. Jones. I make the same general objection as was made to the last offers. 
(The letter identified by the witness, dated "War Department, Washington, 
June 9, 1917," addressed "Hon. James Wickersham, Delegate from Alaska. 
House of Representatives," and signed " William M. Ingraham, Assistant Sec- 
retary of War," is hereto appended and marked " Contestant's Exhibit F.") 

The Witness. This letter from the Assistant Secretary of War, which is 
marked "Contestant's Exhibit F," was written altogether too late to have any 
effect whatsoever. It was dated "Washington, D. C, June 9, 1917," and if the 
information was forwarded at that time it could not have reached Alaska prior 
to the time set for the taking of the depositions. As a matter of fact, the sol- 
diers at Fort Gibbon first refused to give any testimony, but finally some of them 
did appear under the instructions of the commanding officer and gave testimony, 
but others declined to state for whom they voted, although it is notorious m that 
country and known to me and all my friends that all of them, except possibly 
one or two. voted for Mr. Sulzer. 

As a part of that proceeding notice was also given of the taking of the depo- 
sitions of the enlisted men engaged at the United States telegraph office at Fair- 
banks, Alaska, all of whom were men regularly enlisted in the United States 
Army and none of whom was a resident or citizen of Alaska, and none of whom 
was entitled to vote there. Mr. Ray undertook to secure the testimony of these 
men, and, although they appeared, they all refused to testify. I telegraphed to 
Lieut W H Faust, in charge of these men at Valdez, Alaska, urging him to give his 
consent to their testifying, and I received a telegram from him in reply saying: 
"Your telegram erroneous. My men Fairbanks directed comply strictly with 
law and advice district attorney." Signed, " H. M. Faust." I offer this tele- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 213 

gi-am in evidence, ask that it be marked and attached to and made a part of my 
^deposition. 

Mr. .Jones. I make the same objection as was made to the last offers. 

(The telegram identified by the witness, dated " Valdez, Alaska, June 14, 
1917," addressed '" James Wickersliam, Seattle," signed " W. H. Faust," is 
hereto appended and marked "Contestant's Exhibit G.") 

The Witness. The district attofney at Fairbanks, Alaska, is one R. F. Roth, 
who is one of the most bitter partisans against me in Alaska. Mr. Roth had 
been applied to in respect to the voting of these men, and I am informed had 
advised them that they might vote, so that when Lieut. Faust referred the 
matter to Roth they were advised not to appear and testify, and did not, 
although all of them voted for Mr. Sulzer. At least they so publicly stated to 
my friends around Fairbanks. 

On June 15 I received another telegram from Mr. Ray. the notary public, ad- 
vising me of the refusal of these soldiers at Fairbanks to testify and of Lieut. 
Faust's instructions and Mr. Roth's action. I offer the telegram in evidence, 
ask to have it marked as an exhibit and attached to and made a part of my 
deposition. 

Mr. Jones. I make the same objection as made to the last offers. 
^(The telegram identified by the witness, dated "Fairbanks, Alaska, June 
15-16, 1917," addressed " James Wickersham, Seattle," and signed " Henry T. 
Ray," is hereby appended and marked "Contestant's Exhibit H.") 

The Witness. In connection with thiit same matter and to show the publicity 
given it, I now offer in evidence a page of the Alaska Citizen, a newspaper pub- 
lished at Fairbanks, Alaska, on Monday morning, June 18, 1917, being a date 
immediately subsequent to my effort to take the depositions of these enlisted 
men at Fairbanks. I offer it for the purpose of showing the objection of Mr. 
Sulzer's attorneys to the taking of the depositions, and I ask to have this page 
marked as an exhibit, attached to my deposition, and made a part thereof. 

Mr. Jones. I object to this offer on the same grounds as heretofore stated and 
on the added ground that it is hearsay. 

(The page of the newspaper identified by the witness is hereto appended and 
marked " Contestant's Exhibit I." ) 

The Witness. In order to identify the particular article appearing in the issue 
of the paper marked " Contestant's Exhibit I," I wU state that I refer to the 
article therein under the heading " Signal Corps bunch balks at answering." 
The Alaska Citizen is a Democratic newspaper and opposed my election, but I 
am informed and believe that it did not get any part or portion of the big 
interest bribe fund. 

In his deposition in Washington Mr. Sulzer referred to the fact that two 
years ago I received something like 700 majority in the fourth division, and 
that in the election in 1916 he received 16 majority in that same division. The 
reason for that change is accounted for by the Thompson-McGowan big in- 
terest bribe fund, which was expended through the Democratic campaign com- 
mittees and the Federal bunch in that division for the purchase of newspapers 
which had formerly supported me and for the control of votes there in the most 
fraudulent and flagrant manner. 

In addition to the bribe money sent by the big interests to the fourth division 
and expended there by Thompson and McGowan, I am also informed that about 
$1,500 was forwarded from the city of Seattle to the Sulzer campaign managers 
at Juneau, Alaska, and that it was very largely expended there by the Federal 
officials for the same purpose. 

There were enlisted men at Eagle City who also voted against me and f"" 
Mr. Sulzer at the election of November 7, 1916. Their names were Barney R. 
Peppersack, Squire Lawry, and Charles B. Murphy, also James S. McDowell. 
These men were enlisted men stationed at the Fort Egbert Military Reservation 
at Eagle City, in charge of the Government telegraph station there. I was 
Informed by Mr. U. G. Myers, by a letter of February 5, 1917, that they had 
voted. I offer that letter in evidence, ask to have it marked as an exhibit and 
attached to my deposition and made a part thereof. 

Mr. Jones. I object on the same grounds heretofore stated. 

(The letter identified by the witness, dated "Eagle, Alaska, February 5, 
1917," addressed "Hon. James Wickersham, Washington, D. C," signed " U. G. 
Myers," is hereto appended and marked " Contestant's Exhibit J." ) 

The Witness. Soon after receiving that letter in Washington, D. C, I sent 
9. telegram to Mr. U. G. Myers asking him to have a personal interview with 
•each one of these soldiers and ask him if he voted for Mr. Sulzer at that election, 



214 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

and to send men the information contained in tlieir answers. This paper I 
Lave in my hand is a copy of my telegram to Mr. Myers, which I sent him under 
date of May 12, 1917. In that telegram I asked Mr. Myers to ask each one of 
these enlisted men if he voted for Mr. Sulzer, and to answer " Yes " or " No," 
and I requested him to show the telegram to them and to ask them to answer 
faithfully. On May 14, 1917, I received a telegram from Mr. Myers, in answer 
to my telegram to him, saying " Compliance'with your night letter, Barney 11. 
Peppersack, Squire Lawry, and Charles B. Murphy answer ' Yes.' James S. 
McDowell declines to answer." I ask to have the copy of my telegram ta 
Mr. Myers and his answer thereto marked as one exhibit, attached to my depo- 
sition and made a part thereof. 

Mr. Jones. Same objection. 

(The copies of telegrams identified by the witness are hereto appended and 
marked "Contestant's Exliibit K.") 

Cross-examination by Mr. Jones : 

Q. Referring to Contestant's Exhibit K, Judge Wickersham, have you any 
knowledge of your own as to the manner in which these men voted? — A, I was 
not there and, of course, do not know, except from what they and my friends 
there have written to me and telegraphed to me. 

Q. Such as is contained in this Exhibit K? — ^A. The testimony is substan- 
tially of that character ; yes. 

Q. Did you take the depositions of these men? — A. I did not. My failure ta 
get the depositions of the other enlisted men who were all under the control of 
l^ieut, Faust, and who had also been instructed by Mr. Roth, United States 
district attorney there, not to answer, satisfied me that it was of no use to go 
f ny further in the matter. 

Mr, Jones. Then we move that Contestant's Exhibit K and the introductory 
remarks by Judge Wickersham in offering it in evidence be stricken from the 
record on the ground that it is wholly hearsay, and it is not competent, rele- 
vant, or material, and it is not within the issues here, and upon the further 
ground that it is not proper rebuttal testimony. As a preface to that objection 
let the record show, as it does show, that Mr. Wickersham's testimony was 
given without the aid of questions, but as a direct recital by him of what he 
conceives to be evidence in this case, and that I, as counsel for Mr. Sulzer, 
did not have an opportunity to object to the various statements as they went in. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Wickersham, in regard to your statement that $1,500 
corruption fund went from Seattle to Juneau, Alaska, and was there turned 
over to the campaign managers and to the Federal officials for use against you 
in your election campaign, whether you know that of your own knowledge? — 
A. Well, I feel obliged to say no, although the statements and facts with regard 
to it are of such character that it looks very close ; that is, I can almost say 
that I know it of iny own knowledge, but I feel that I am obliged to say no,, 
because I know the rule. 

Mr. Jones. Then I move that the testimony of Mr. Wickersham with x"egard 
to the statement about a campaign fund being sent from Seattle to Juneau and 
there used by the Democratic campaign managers and by the Federal officers or 
officials be stricken as wholly hearsay evidence, and on the further ground that 
it is not proper rebuttal testimony and not within the issues in this case. 

Mr. WicicEESHAM. Let me make this explanation : It is not altogether without 
some support, because a part of it was the money that Mr. Lathrop admitted 
having sent ; that is, $300. That was a part of the money sent. 

Mr. Jones. He didn't admit sending it to Juneau, though. 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no ; but that is where he did send it. 

Q. I will ask you if you made any effort to have any testimony taken to sub- 
stantiate your statement with regard to this $1,500? — A. Yes; I called Mr: 
Lathrop for that purpose. 

Q. Is that all? — A. That is all. These men who do things of that kind do 
them secretly and underhanded and won't testify ; and if they do testify, they 
won't tell the truth. 

Q. That is a common trouble that almost everybody suffers in attempting to 
prove things. — A. Yes ; but it is particularly flagrant in Alaskan politics. 

Q. AVith regard to the statement that you made a few moments ago as to the 
Alaska Citizen at Fairbanks, a newspaper published there, ha-jiing received no 
part of the bribe fund that you have frequently referred to, do you know that 
of your own knowledge? — ^A. Well, I know that from the conditions surrounding 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 215 

the situation. At least I am satisfied beyond any doubt that it is true. It is 
notorious in Alaska. 

Q. You for a long time practiced law and were a Federal judge? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you know that certain things are admissible and certain things ai'e 
not admissible as evidence? — A. Yes; you and I are both attorneys, and we both 
know that frequently matters that are not strictly admissible under the rule are 
facts that are well known to be true, as common knowledge. These matters 
were common knowledge and notorious in Alaska. 

Q. You had an opportunity, did you not, to get the facts from those who did 
know? — A. Mr. Thompson states the facts in his letter, which has been offered 
in evidence, and which is so well known and so notorious that everybody knows 
it in Alaska. 

Q. Now, then, in general, I will ask you this : In regard to the letter offered 
in evidence and referred to as the Thompson letter, being " Contestant's Exhibit 
A," I believe you stated that that was a letter received by Mr. Heron? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you have an opportunity to take Mr. Heron's testimony? — A. Yes. 

Q. You did not receive the letter yourself ?— A. I did not ; no ; but I know 
Mr. Thompson's writing. 

Q. You know Mr. Thompson's writing? — A. I think I do. I am familiar with 
his writing, and I am satisfied beyond any doubt that that is his writing. Mr. 
Heron thought so, and everybody thinks so. 

Q. Y'ou did not receive the letter yourself? — A. No, sir ; I did not. Of course, 
I have seen others of these letters, which were exhibited to me by other news- 
paper men in the territory. 

Q. Perhaps you have the letter somewhere else in your record, but what I 
wish to know is whether or not you, having an opportunity to have this letter 
Introduced in evidence after identification by somebody who received it, took 
advantage of that opportunity? — A. No; I did not. 

Mr. Jones. Then, I move that it be stricken on the ground that the exhibit 
itself is not the best evidence, that it is hearsay, and that it is incompetent, 
irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper rebuttal testimony. 

A. Now, in respect to that matter, this same letter was published by me, by 
being offered before the Committee on Territories in the House of Representa- 
tives during the winter, and it was published publicly in the printed hearings 
of the committee, and in that way it came to Mr. Thompson's attenton and to 
Mr. McGowan's attention. I did have a subpoena issued for Mr. McGowan. I 
was informed that Mr. McGowan would be here in the city of Seattle, Wash., 
and I had a subpoena issued for him. His wife came but Mr. McGowan did 
not come and, of course, you realize that I did not have time, in 10 days, to 
reach him is San Francisco, where he is ill,_ and could not be gotten at probably, 
and I could not within that 10 days have "gotten the deposition of Mr. Thomp- 
son, and I don't think it is necessary, because I know his writing and I know 
he issued it, and many of the newspaper editors of Alaska received the same 
letter and I saw them and they told me about it. 

Mr. Jones. I move that the statements of the witness regarding conversa- 
tions he had with editors and other persons about having received the Thomp- 
son letter be stricken also as hearsay. 

Q. Referring to " Contestant's Exhibit I," being a copy of the issue of a 
newspaper of June 18, 1917, I will ask you, Mr. Wickersham, if you had an 
opportunity to take the testimony of the editor or the reporter who wrote this 
article? — A. Yes, I had; but I didn't do it. I didn't do it because it was not 
necessary to do it. 

Mr. Jones. I move that " Contestant's Exhibit I " be stricken on the ground 
that it is not the best evidence, that it is hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, im- 
material, and not proper rebuttal tesimony. 

A. Of course, you undersand that when I say " yes," that I had an oppor- 
tunity to take their testimony, that it is almost impossible to take depositions 
within the limited time allowed, at such distances. Notice had to be served on 
Mr. Sulzer in Washington, D. C., and subpoenas served in Fairbanks, Alaska, 
or in California, or wherever the witnesses were. We simply didn't have time 
to do it. 

Q. I presume you will admit, Mr. Wickersham, that Mr. Sulzer was up 
against the same proposition? — A. No. Mr. Sulzer had 40 days in which to do 
those things, and I only had 10, but Mr. Sulzer would not have taken their dep- 
ositions any way. 

- Q. Referring to " Contestant's Exhibit H," being a purported telegram from 
Henry T. Ray, of Fairbanks, dated June 15, 1917, to James Wickersham, at 



216 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Seattle, I will ask you, Mr. Wickersham, if you had any opportunity to take 
Mr. Ray's testimony as to the matters set forth therein? — A. Well, yes, possibly; 
no, actually ; but those matters appear in the depositions that Mr. Ray did 
take of these other people. I only introduced these telegrams for the purpose 
of showing the connection between the official actions of the War Department 
and Mr. Ray's actions and the actions of these soldiers and to show the reason 
why they refused to appear. That much of it, of course, appears in the record 
of the other hearings up there. 

Mr. Jones. I move that the exhibit itself, the introductory remarks by which 
it was introduced, and the explanatory remarks partially just given by the wit- 
ness in answer to my question, be all stricken from the record on the ground 
that they are hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper re- 
buttal. 

Q. Referring to " Contestant's Exhibit E," being a purported copy of a night 
lettergram on the blank form of the Postal Cable Telegraph Co., addressed to 
•lames AVickersham, Tacoina, Wash., and signed by H. T. Ray, dated May 30, 
]917, I will nsk you, Mr. Wickersh<im. if you h;id un opportunity to secure the 
testimony of Mr. Ray as to what he- is purported to have sttited in that mes- 
sage? — A. I doubt if I had any such opportunity, but it all appears in the 
record that went up from Tanana and Fairbanks. I only introduced it for 
the purpose of sho^^'ing the laxness of the War Department and the refusal of 
the War Department to order these soldiers to testify in time so that their 
testimony could be taken. The War Department didn't act. And then they 
turned the whole matter over to Roth, who was notoriously in opposition to mo, 
and doing everything he could to prevent the War Department from acting. 

Mr. Jones. I move that tlie exhibit and Mr. Wickersham's testimony in con- 
nection with it be stricken as hearsay, and as incompetent and improper rebuttal 
iestimonj''. 

Q. Mr. Wickersham, referring to your statement that moneys were collected 
by Lathrop, Thompson, and McGowan, the latter two gentlemen being, accord- 
ing to your statement, the representatives of certain big interests in Alask^i, 
do you know th;it of your own knowledge? — A. I know that they say so. I 
know that Tom McGowan is general counsel for those people in the Territory of 
Alaska, yes; and I know tliat Thompson personally told me thnt he was their 
agent, and that he received $150 per month for his services in that connection. 

Q. You perhaps misunderstood my question. What I asked you was whether 
you knew of your own knowledge of any money collected by them, and xised for 
,iny fraudulent or ecrrupt purpose in connection with this election? — A. Yes. 

Q. You know it of your own knowledge? — A. Yes ; because people who got 
the money told me so. 

Q. Did you have an opportunity to take the testimony of the people who re- 
ceived tliis money? — A. No. 

Q. It is tlien merely hearsay? — A. Oh, not at all. Oh, no. Not at all. 
Lxithrop admits it, and McGowan admits it, and Thompson admits it, and every- 
body knows it in Alaska. It is open, notorious history. It is talked about gen- 
erally up tliere. 

Mr. Jones. I move, upon the witness's answer to my question, that the testi- 
mony offered by him in direct examination on this subject be stricken as hear- 
say, as improper rebuttal, as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not 
within the issues. 

Q. Do yon know of yoxu* own knowledge, Mr. Wickersham, that 11 newspapers 
in Alaska wei-e bought by this corruption fund? — A. Do you mean to ask m6 
now whether I saw Thonipson give those fellows the money or not? 

Q. You understand perfectly well what is evidence and what is not. Do you 
Itnow of your own kno\^iodge? — A. I understand that in a case of fraud you 
are not limited to as strict a rule as in other oases, and this is a case of fraud 
in elections up there, and I have stated, I think, very clearly what I know 
about it. 

Q. I don't wish to get into any argument with you on an abstract rule, but 
I think it is also a general rule that fraud is not proven by some general 
declarations that fraud exists. — A. The fraud tliat I am complaining about her6 
is something that we have proved by positive evidence. I know that these 11 
newspapers, most of which had supported me before, fought me most viciously 
in this campaign, and I know that Mr. Thompson says over his own signature 
that he used the bribe fund, and that these newspapers received it. 

Q. Is that proof in evidence? — A. Yes. That is in his own letter here, "Ex- 
hibit A." You have not I'ead his letter. I know that those papers did just ex- 
actly what Thompson says he paid them to do. Everybody in Alaska knows it. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEK. 217 

Mr. Jones. Upon the answer of the witness. I move that his testimony given 
Oil this subject in direct examination be striclcen as hearsay and as incompetent, 
irrelevant, immaterial, and not within the issues. 

Q. Do you Ijnow that this Ketchikan editor, whom it was testified was paid 
^250 by Mr. Thompson, actually received that money? — A. It was $350. 

Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge? — A. I didn't see it paid, but I . 
accused him of it in public meeting, and he didn't deny it. He admitted that 
he got it, but said that it was for advertising. 

Q. How do you know, Mr. Wickersham, that Thompson and McGowan col- 
lected $10,000? — A. I don't know, except from what Thompson says in his 
letter, and the information that I got from Lathrop and the other people who 
subscribed to the fund. 

Q. By Tliompson's letter you refer to your " Exhibit A" V — ^A. Yes. 

Q. That is the source of your knowledge? — A. That, and, as I say, other 
sources, 

Q. Common gossip? — A. Oh, no. Not at all. Not at all. Common history. 

Mr. Jones. I move that the statement of the witness, and the testimony given 
by him in regard to Thompson and McGowan collecting $10,000 and regarding 
the control by them of the Alaska press, be stricken, upon the ground that it is 
hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not within the issues in this 
<!ause, and not rebuttal testimony. 

Q. Referring to your testimony, Mr. Wickersham, regarding the activity of 
one Mr. Hibbs, the Government school-teacher in the Hydaburg district, I 
believe you stated that he used a steamer or some other kind of boat to round 
up the Indians for these depositions? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many did he find? — A. He finally found two, but he searched high 
and low for them. 

Q. That was the fruit of his efforts? — A. That was the final result, much 
to his disappointment, because he certainly didn't leave anything undone, but 
the Indians cared a good deal less about the matter than Hibbs did, apparently, 

Q. I believe that you stated that all of these Indians voted for Sulzer? — 
A. Yes, sir ; I did — the Indians at Hydaburg. 

Q. Do you know that by reason of any counting of the ballots or an investiga- 
tion of the election returns at that place? — A. I do. 

Q. What was that? — ^A. My personal investigation was an examination Of the 
returns which showed that Sulzer received 76 out oC 78 votes, and the state- 
ments of the two men who voted for me, and they were not Indians. 

Q. All of these other 76 votes were Indians? — A. Oh, no. Not at all. Only 
35 of them. Between 35 and 40 from Hydaburg. 

Q. How do you know that there were 85 or 40, or 45, or any other definite 
number? — ^A. Only from the examination of the returns, and from the knowl- 
edge of the people, and from what other people have told me about it. 

Q. Are those returns in evidence in this case? — A. I doubt that. I am not 
aware or sure that they are. 

Mr. Jones. I move that the testimony of the witness with regard to the voting 
of the Indians in the Sulzer precinct or at Hydaburg be stricken upon the 
ground that it is wholly hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not 
rebuttal testimony. 

Q. Referring to " Contestant's Exhibit C," a letter signed by one Adolf 
Osterhaus, dated Dillingham, Alaska, May 5, 1917, and addressed to Hon. 
James Wickersham, Washington, D. C, I will ask you. Mr. Wickersham, if 
you had an opportunity to take the testimony of Mr. Osterhaus with regard 
to these statements? — A. No; not nt all. It would be impossible. It would be 
impossible to take his deposition within the time fixed by the statute, because 
he and other election officers were tit Dillingham and at Nushagak, and the 
evidence is all in the record at Washington, showing how infrequently the 
mails go out there and how infrequently the boats go out there. It would be 
impossible to do that. Neither side did it, although both sides Avanted testi- 
mony with respect to it. I have a communication from the Postmaster Gen- 
eral showing that the mails did not go out there in time to take those official 
ballots to these precincts and they were not carried by mail. 

Q. You would give the same answer with regard to " Contestant's Exhibit 
B," which is another letter from Mr. Osterhaus to yourself, dated May 5, 
1917? — A. No; that is not from Mr. Osterhaus. It is signed by IMr. Osterhaus 
and other members of the board. 



218 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Q. Yes; Osterhaus, Hanson, Larson, and some one else. — A. It is signed by 
the judges of the election out there, and by the school-teacher— and the school- 
teacher is one of the judges of the election — and also by the postmaster out 
there ; yes. I presume that is an official statement signed by those men officially. 

Q. No effort on your part was made to take their testimony? — A. It was 
impossible to take their depositions — a physical impossibility. 

Mr. Jones. I move that they both be stricken on the ground that the matters 
contained in both " Exhibits B and G " are hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, 
immaterial, and not rebuttal testimony at all. 

Q. Your statement, Mr. Wickersham, that certain gentlemen connected with 
transportation and fisheries interests in Alaska took up subscriptions; is that 
based upon your own knowledge? — A. Very largely. Not very largely, but some- 
what, and somewhat upon Mr. Lathrop's admissions. 

Q. Is . there any other testimony in the record on that subject than Mr. 
Lathrop's admissions? — A. I am not quite sure. I would have to examine 
the record to determine that. 

Mr. Jones. I move that that also be stricken as hearsay, together with all 
of Mr. Wickersham's testimony regarding the collection of funds for fraudulent 
use in the election of Mr. Sulzer, and on the further ground that it is incom- 
petent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper rebuttal testimony. 

A. On that score, it is notorious that every Federal official was held ui> 
and had to give up a part of his month's salary, and sometimes the whole of 
it to that fund. 

Q. Did you take the testimony of any of those Federal officials? — A. I did 
not. 

Mr. Jones. I move that that be stricken also. 

A. But it is so open and notorious that none of them will deny it. 

James Wickebsham. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1917, 
[seal.] Dwight D. Haktman, 

Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

State of Washington, 
County of King, ss: 

I hereby certify that I am a notary public in and for the State of Wash- 
ington, residing at Seattle, and the notary public named in the attached and 
foregoing notice ; that on the 6th day of August, 1917, beginning at 10 o'clock 
a. m., there appear before me as witnesses called by the contestant, James 
M. Lathrop, W. B. Ballou, and George Dreibelbis and James Wickersham 
named in said notice, that contestant appeared personally; that Robert M. 
Jones, Esq., appeared in behalf of the contestee ; that questions were asked 
and answers thereto given in the examination of said witnesses, as set forth 
in the attached and foregoing pages, the questions and answers being reduced 
to writing in my presence and \inder my direction by Lee Johnston, a sten- 
ographic reporter and a disinterested person ; that after the questions asked 
and answers given thereto were reduced to writing the same were read over 
by the respective witnesses and the transcript thereof subscribed by them as :i 
full, true, and correct transcript of their testimony ; that the exhibits hereto 
appended, marked, respectively, " Contestant's Exhibits A to K," inclusive, 
are the identical exhibits identified by the witnesses in the course of their 
examination. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and my notaria'l seal this 
nth day of August, A. D. 1917. 

[seal.] Dwight D. Hartman, 

Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

Contestant's Exhibit A. 

[Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Sept. 12, 1916.] 
Dear Brother in Sin: 

Did you ever study the question of prohibition? How much? 

A year ago I didn't know there was an argument against prohibition, or 
what prohibition was. A year ago, when Tom McGowan, on the day of my 
departure for the outside, asked me what the attitude of my paper would be 
on the prohibition question in November next I told him that not for less than 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER, 219 

$5,000 cash (some money!) would I allow a word to be printed in my News- 
Miner in favor of the cause of liquor — that it had never done me anything 
but harm, and that I was " agin " it all the way. This year I came back to 
fight prohibition every step of the way, for nothing. In my study, started by 
accident and surroundings and continued for personal reasons, I " flushed " 
several thousand dollars from the liquor trust and brought with me contracts 
to fill out as I desired dividing it among the newspapers of Alaska as I desired, 
and I did so divide it, with a remainder which will just pay me from $5 to 
$7.50 for every time I mail proofs of the stuff in my paper to the pupei-'s on 
my list ; for such circulars and pamphlets as McGowan may oi'der, and for as 
many copies of my paper at 5 cents as McGowan may be able to use around 
election time — mine is the only paper on the list of 11 Alaska papers which 
has no contract with McGowan and no sum set for the support of my paper 
in the contest. This will not read right to you boys, kno^ving what a king 
grafter I really am, yet it is the absolute truth, and I will make affidavit to 
the fact if you wish it and have my wife make one, also — she is a Catholic and 
doesn't lie. Why do I do this? Why didn't I keep all the money, or most 
of it? Why did I split it, especially with some of the little fellows who can't 
help much, if any? I'll tell you, and " tell you truly " : 

Because I discovered that prohibition does not prohibit where it is working, 
and that it means small-town, busted city, Impoverished and criminal country 
and State, and much loss and misery without any appreciable good ; because 
under prohibition my paper couldn't make a living for me in Alaska, or my 
town educate my two baby boys, or my friends live and prosper in interior 
Alaska with the revenue from liquor cut off from this municipality ; because 
prohibition means plenty good booze for the provident well-to-do man at a 
slightly higher price, but bum booze and higher-priced booze for the rough- 
neck or improvident man ; because the rough-neck and freedom-loving work- 
man wouldn't walk into Tanana to take the gold out for us if this camp had 
the lid on it — because there isn't an excuse for prohibition here, and there are 
a million excuses for fighting it. 

I contracted the easy money to you boys because I wanted you with me and 
knew that you would be with me for Alaska if you knew as much of the subject 
and the workings of prohibition as I do ; because I believed I could make all 
the money I need in straight business if prohibition did not come to knock my 
business, and because I knew that I would need your help to let all the people 
of Alaska hear something of the other side of prohibition, and you were enti- 
tled to advertising rates for space to a big extent. 

(Incidentally, and to show you that "virtue is its own reward," I will tell 
you confidentially that I am just back from Dawson, where they sent for me 
to come and save them from prohibition, after they had already been so lost 
to the Prohibitionists that, seemingly, saltpeter couldn't save them. They asked 
me to come and fill five columns a day in the Dawson News, hired for the oc- 
casion by the business men. They were offering five to one that prohibition 

would carry, and no takers, when they sent for me. I told them to go to , 

but their need was so great that they offered me more than the salary of the 
President of the United States for the three weeks' work they wanted, and the 
price was so great I brought in Southworth and had him run my paper for me 
and went to Dawson. The News, from carrying water on both shoulders and 
never having an opinion on any subject, is dying of dry rot, and has no hiiman 
interest features, but it is the only paper there, and they had to use it. I was 
" Santa Claus " to the News gang — they told the business men that nobody 
could fill five columns a day for three weeks, but I not only did, but took every 
extra inch of their paper that money could buy at 50 cents an inch, and kept 
it all filled. I took with me a trunkload of literature against prohibition, and 
never used a bit of it except a couple of pages of Kansas statistics, which the 
Prohibitionists of Dawson, Canada, compelled me to use. because they had no 
other star example of prohibition except Kansas. I took Canada and her pro- 
hibition history and achievements and beat them to death. I knew more Cana- 
dian history than the Canadians did, and I compelled them to lay down on 
every proposition their ministers tackled — at last I discovered that I had only 
to spring a statistic or fact (real or alleged) to set the ministers back on their 
haunches, and after that I kept them sitting there — when you know they can't 
come back, it is easy to print " facts " to keep them going. At the last moment 
they took all the money they had left (after paying for space in the News to 
confute my talk) and sent to Toronto for Ben Spence, the linguistic stallion 



220 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

of the prohibition corral of Canada, and brought him to Dawson to speak on 
prohibition. He got there in time to speak two nights before election ; I was 
on my way back home by then, but I left copy for the two days before election, 
and told them the night he spoke what he would say and what he wouldn't say 
( I had his stock speech ! ) and in the next eve's paper printed an " I told you 
so !" Then they voted. Their 5 to 1 prohibition resulted in a " wet " victory 
by 3 votes ! They couldn't deny that Thompson's newspaper campaign saved 
that camn. at any rate — it would have put them worse on the bum than they 
are, and they are almost dead now. Now they are sending me a bonus of 1^500 
for my work — after it is ended.) 

You will be surprised if you look into the matter to discover what a mone- 
tary loss prohibition would mean to your camp and what a setback it would 
give Alaska. You know whei'e the money comes from now for your schools 
and fire department and municipal improvements — from the licenses of the 
liquor dealers. You know that two-thirds or more of all of the revenues of 
the United States Government come from the liqiior industry or the sale of 
liquor. You also know that to this date the Prohibitionists have never told 
you where you can make up the loss in revenues, and the United States Gov- 
ernment has never to your knowledge sought to suggest a way to replace these 
revenues— never intimated that there is a way, to your knowledge. Before 
the Bi!? Dog at Washington starts to consider running this United States of 
ours without revenues from the liquor industry, what excuse is there for poor 
A'aska trying to solve the question for the Government? In Dawson the Puri- 
tans told the people " Pay no attention to the question of revenues — the reve- 
nues will take care of themselves ! Did your revenues ever take care of thenl- 
selves. to your advantage? Did your town's revenues ever take care of them- 
selves, without help? Can revenues take care of themselves? Will you turn 
your paper over to anybody who wants to try to run it, and who believes that 
the revenues of a paper will take care of themselves? I see you doing it! 
Yes, that is the argument of prohibition, everywhere, expressed or inferred^ 
that the revenues will take care of themselves, and wherever prohibition i^ 
working, the revenues do take care of themselves, i. e., there is no money for 
charity or public improvements. And, in Alaska, the resvilt would be W()fs6 
than anywhere else, for we are not our own bosses and have to beg hard fo< 
money from Washington, no matter how much Washington may owe us. for 
at Washington they are taking care of the revenues, and there are many reve- 
nue-getters and iinderstnnders of revenue on the iob. Your schools and fire 
department would be cut one-half, if not more, with prohibition, so far as the 
necessary revenues to run them are known or suggested under prohibition. 
I'our town would have hard work to get the necessary workers to come to a 
dead-alive-dry-camp to work to do your producing, and you know it. 

You don't know how near the Puritnns — the men who have nothing and never 
had — are going to come to put prohibition upon you in November ! You think 
there's no chance but there is. After November 7 it will be too late. I don't 
blame you for not printing the stuff I send you and for which you signed con- 
tracts to print, for it is too long in articles for most any paper but mine ; yet I 
do blame you for not getting into the game on your own account nnd making a 
little talk medicine to save your camp and Territory. I realize that you don't 
do this because you have not studied the question, but I want to tell you now 
that if you do study it and read the arguments and facts against prohibition you 
will probiibly find, as I have found, that it is the most interesting and satisfac- 
tory study of your later age. It is a virgin field of study to the average man; 
but you can't read for an hour for a dozen nights the arguments and facts 
against prohibition without becoming in those 12 hours the most uncompro- 
mising enemy to prohibition that you ever heard of. Try it and see. If it don't 
" get " you I'll guarantee to send you a new suit of clothes. I'm on the water 
wagon "for life." It isn't for me. As I told the people of Dawson the night be- 
fore election in the Dawson News, I wouldn't take a drink of beer or whisky to 
save Dawson and all Canada from hell and damnation, but I wouldn't say a 
word in favor of prohibition as it now exists to save my life. 

Briefly, logically, prohibition is the intemperance of temperance. It stands in 
exactly the same relation to the liquor problem as common or low-down drunk- 
enress stands; they are the two extremes of temperance. You know this, 
although you may never have thought of it. It stands for compelling by legis- 
lation men to be moral and successful along the lines of life thought out and 
proposed by men who have never been successful and never will be. It proposes 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 221 

always to destroy existing conditions and never offers anything of a material 
nature that can logically be accepted as a substitute for the loss. It infers that 
the average man is a drunkard and needs protection against the drinli which 
will drag him down, whereas one-third of the people of the United States are not 
even moderate drinkers ; half of them seldom if ever take a drink ; only a small 
minority of the people drink; and only an unappreciable number of nil liie 
people of the United States may be said to drink to excess. Take a census of 
all the people who go into a saloon in your town during the day ; compare it 
with your population and see how insignificant it is. Some go more than once ; 
many go too often ; some remain all day, and they seem to number a lot, yet 
compared with your population they are few, indeed. Shut out the saloons, and 
you would have twice as many places where liquor could be bought ; it would 
be poorer liquor and higher in price, but a man will get drunk on lemon extract 
if he can't get anything else and wants to get drunk ; tell a man he can't do any- 
thing he has a right to do, and he will show you, even at his own cost. 

It's no skin off my posterior if none of you say a word against prohibition, but 
as one of you I advise you at this time that for your own sake and your paper's 
sake you ought to, and now. I wouldn't advise you to say a word in favor of 
your local saloons — would advise you to roast them and make them be good for 
the protection of the camp and the people. The saloon gives the excuse for the 
Anti-Saloon League and should be roasted Into playing the game. Few saloon 
men know how or are willing to play the game, and you ought to tell them in 
the paper that they must get In and make the other fellow play the game and 
play it right, or you will go after them and close them all. Properly conducted, 
the saloon is more honorable than the average drug store and a better protection 
to humanity at large. You may depend on it that neither McGowan or the 
liquor people of the outside will ever hear from me that all of you boys who 
are getting a few dollars from the liquor men of the outside for anti-prohibition 
work are not printing column after column of dope for them. But for Alaska's 
sake and the sake of your home town don't let them put prohibition on Alaska 
and put most of us out of business. 

Alaska was all prohibition to 1897 and before. You remember those days — 

the days of Soapy Smith. Do you want them back? It is easy to get them if 

you want them. Just keep your mouth shut until after November 7, and you 

may have those days with you as soon as prohibition goes into force in Alaska. 

Fraternally, 

W. F. Thompson. 

(This Merg. letter is confidential and not for publication or to show to 
anyone. ) 

Dear Heeon : This is confidential — a letter to the boys on my list who have 
taken the money and are not doing the work. I send it to you to give you a 
sober second thought, for it's all true. If you'd study prohibition from both 
sides for two nights, you would be as keen against it as I am. It don't affect 
Nenana and Anchorage (Govt, towns) as it would the rest of Alaska, but 
under it our 8-teacher school would drop to 1 teacher. Can't consider Anchor- 
age matter. Am doing too well here. Good luck. 

W. F. 

Duflield went to Frisco and tried for backing on auti-prohi. grounds ; referred 
to. me ; turned down hard. W. F. 



Contestant's Exhibit B. 

Dillingham, Alaska, Ma.y 5, 1917. 
Hon. James Wiciceesham, 

Washirigton, D. C. 

Sir: Word has just reached here, confirming rumors which have been circu- 
lating here during the past two months, to the effect that the votes cast at the 
election held November last, at the Dillingham voting precinct and at other 
voting precincts, in the Bristol Bay district, had been declared invalid, and have 
been thrown out of the count, because the proper ballot had not been used. 

We, the electors of this precinct, hereby express our strong, disapproval of 
this action, as we cast our votes in good faith, honestly, and fairly, thereby 
expressing our wishes relative to the result of such election. 



222 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

It was not the fault of either the election judges or the voters of this precinct 
that the proper ballots were not at our disposal. 

We have held two elections here during former years, and at such elections 
we have made our own ballots as we did in this instance. 

As we were not furnished the proper ballots at the election November last, 
and as we were not informed as to any changes in the election laws, we feel 
that we have lost our votes unjustly. 

The necessary registration books, tally books, etc., were furnished by the 
clerk of the district court, but there were no ballots with them. 

It seems to us that if these votes were thrown out on account of the fact 
that the official ballot was not used, that the fault lies with the authorities who 
are supposed to furnish these supplies for election purposes, and therefore feel 
that we are and were deprived of our right as American citizens to cast our 
ballots for the persons we desired to represent us in our Government. 
Respectfully, 

Adolf Osteehaus, Judge of Election, 
Louis Hansen, Judge of Election, 
Otto A. TjArson, Postmaster, 
Peeston H. Nash, Government Teacher, 
Resident Citizens of Dillingham Toting Precinct, Bristol Bay, Alaska* 



Contestant's Exhibit 0. 

Dillingham, Alaska, May 5, 1917. 
Hon, James Wicker sham, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Rumors have reached here during the winter that the votes cast in 
this and other precincts in this district at the election held November last 
were thrown out as invalid, thereby causing you to lose the election as Delegate 
to Congress. While these rumors have not been confirmed from any authoritative 
source, we are informed by the first persons coming in this spring on the 
cannery boats that such rumors are correct. 

We had understood from the accounts received here, through the few papers 
reaching us this winter, that you had been elected by the votes from this place, 
and that this district had been called the California of Alaska for Wickersham, 
as your election depended on the votes from these precincts, as the presidential 
election depended on the California vote. 

The mail service here is very poor, and we receive very few papers, there- 
fore can not keep in touch with current events. If it had been known by us ^t 
an earlier date, we might have made some protest against having these votes 
thrown out. We believe that these votes should have been counted in your 
favor, as the result of the voting here was an honorable and true expression 
of' the M'ishes of the voters, and the votes should not have been thrown out on 
account of a slight technicality. From information at hand it seems these 
votes were declared invalid on account of not having or using the official 
ballot. If this is the case, why were the official ballots not furnished us. 

Registration books, tally books, etc., necessary for holding said election 
were placed in the hands of the election judges by the commissioner, but there 
were no ballots, and we were not informed of the requirement that other ballots 
used must be certified to by the election judges. 

The commissioner gave us the names of all candidates, as nearly as he could 
recollect them, and we made typewritten ballots, as nearly in the proper form 
as we could. This has been the practice here at every election held, and being 
ignorant of law as passed by the Alaska Legislature relative to the matter,, 
we thought the voting was perfectly legal. We regret very much that you 
should lose the election through our ignorance of the law, or through the 
negligence of some official in not sending us the proper ballots along with the 
other paraphernalia necessary for holding an election. We have given you a 
good majority at each election held here, and do not like the idea of losing 
our votes this time, as we are American citizens and want our full rights as 
such in our representative government. 
Respectfully, 

Adolf Osteehaus. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 223 

Contestant's Exhibit D. 

[Telegram.] 

Tanana, Alaska, November 5-6, 1916. 
Judge Wickers HAM, 

Cordova: 
Please wire immediately if enlisted soldiers who have been stationed here 
two years can vote at Territoritil elaction. They have resided on military- 
reservation entire time. Nigger in v\'oodpile. 

Joseph Anicich. 



Contestant's Exhibit E. 

[Night <^ttergram.] 

Faiebanks, Axaska, May SO, 1917. 
.James Wickersham, 

Tacoma, Wash.: 
Acting under advice district attorney, soldiers will refuse obey subpoena 
or testify unless I produce statutory authority to take depositions. Claims 
subptpnas must be issued competent court, otherwise can not recognize. Wired 
you this effect yesterday Washington. Leave for Tanana to-night on fast 
launch to serve subpoenas for hearing 6th. 

H. T. Ray. 



Contestant's Exhibit F. 

War Department, 
Washington, June 9, 1917. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate fro^m Alaska, 

House of Representatives. 
Dear Mr. Wickersham : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
your letter of May 25, 1917, in the matter of taking the testimony of certain 
enlisted men at Fort Gibbon, Alaska, and Fairbanks, Alaska, with reference 
to the election contest between you, as contestant, and Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee, and to advise you that the commanding officer. Fort Gibbon, Alaska, has 
been instructed to give such of the enlisted men as may yet be stationed at 
that post opportunity to appear in response to a subpoena and give testimony 
concerning the matter indicated in your request. Similar instructions have been 
sent with reference to the Signal Corps men at Fairbanks, Alaska. 
Very respectfully, 

Wm. M, Ingraham, 
Assistant Secretary of War.' - 



Contestant's Exhibit G. 

[Telegram.] 

Valdez, Axaska, June 14, 1917. 
James Wickersham, 

Seattle: 
Your telegram erroneous. My men Fairbanks directed comply strictly with 
law and advice district attorney. 

M. H. Faust. 



Contestant's Exhibit H. 

[Telegram.] 

Fairbanks, Axaska, June 15-16, 1917. 
James Wickersham, 

Seattle: 
Witnesses attended yesterday; one testified, several others refused answer 
any questions whatever. I adjourned hearing till to-day over objection Sulzer 



224 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

attorney. No one appeared to-day. Witnesses state will not attend further 
unless instructed by proper authority. Took adjournment to-morrow 1 o'clock. 
Faust instructed men follow Roth advice. No word received from War De- 
partment. All objection here my authority insufficient under statute. Wit- 
nesses follow strictly advice district attorney. Only direct orders superior 
officers will make them testify. 

Henry T. Ray. 



Contestant's Exhibit I. 

SIGNAX COEPS BUNCH BAXKS AT ANSWERING. 

Having been subpoenaed by Henry T. Ray to appear before him and answer 
questions regarding the last Delegate election, all of the members of the detach- 
ment of Signal Corps men stationed here refused yesterday to do so; that is, 
they refused to answer the questions propounded and to be sworn after appear- 
ing before Mr. Ray in answer to the subpoenas. As their authority for taking 
such action the Signal Corps men contended that Mr. Ray had not the proper 
authority to question them. After all the men had taken the above-described 
action Mr. Ray announced that the investigation would be adjourned until 
Thursday afternoon at 1 o'clock, at which time those who had been subpoenaed 
would be expected to appear again. 

Mr. Ray is taking depositions in the matter of the contest of last fall's Dele- 
gate election instituted by Judge James Wickersham. . He recently returned 
from a trip to Tanana, where he took 92 depositions of soldiers and others. It 
is in an effort to perform the duty that has been placed upon him that he is 
endeavoring to take the depositions of the local Signal Corps detachment. He 
says that he had no trouble whatever in securing all of the depositions he re- 
quested at Tanana. 

Attorneys John A. Clark and Cecil H. Clegg appeared yesterday before Mr. 
Ray in behalf of Delegate Sulzer. Mr. Ray failed to recognize them, however, 
as attorneys for the Delegate until Mr. Clark had produced a telegram authoriz- 
ing them to act. They then filed the following written objection to the pro- 
ceedings : 

" On behalf of Mr. Charles A. Sulzer we object to the proceedings herein and 
to the taking of the testimony of the following witnesses, viz : Robert Loghry, 
James G. Coleman, Harry Shutts, John E. Pegues, Charles Agnetti, Raphael 
Myerson, Frank U. Moore. Austiu Foster, Thomas Griffin, William Kirby, Dur- 
wood M. Hocker. 

" That no sufficient, proper, or legal notice was given to Mr. Sulzer, as required 
by section 108 of chapter 8, Revised Statutes of the United States, in that the 
alleged notice of the taking of these depositions failed to state at what par- 
ticular place within the town of Fairbanks said depositions would be taken, 
also because said alleged notice failed to state the name or names of the wit- 
nesses who were to give testimony in these proceedings, and did not state the 
name of any witness whose deposition was to be taken under said proceedings; 
also on the ground that the residence of the witnesses was not stated in said 
alleged notice, nor the residence of any witness. 

" On the further ground that no notice whatever, nor any legal notice has 
been given to Mr. Sulzer as to the proof intended to be offered by Mr. Wicker- 
sham, or as to the facts alleged by him as the basis for this contest, and that 
Mr. Sulzer, the returned Member, has no information whatever as to the issues 
to be presented by this contest, nor has any notice as to the issues in this con- 
test been furnished or given in any way to any of the witness who are to be 
examined. 

" On the further gi-ound that no copy of the notice of contest or- of the answer 
of Mr. Sulzer to the facts alleged or attempted to be presented by Mr. Wicker- 
sham is in the possession of the officer taking these depositions, and therefore 
the same can not be prefixed thereto when taken, for the purpose of being 
transmitted to the clerk of the House of Representatives, as provided by sec- 
tion 126 of said chapter 8 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

" It is further objected that the questions propounded, or proposed to be 
propounded, to each and every witness so to be examined at Fairbanks, Alaska, 
on the 12th day of June, 1917, are not shown to be within any of the issues 
presented by the notice of contest and the answer to be filed in this matter, 
and said witnesses can not know, and do not know, whether or not the ques- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 225 

tions propounded to them on behalf of the contestant are proper questions, or 
are within the issues, or any issues presented in said contest, nor is it possible 
for Mr. Sulzer to know what the facts are, required to be deA^eloped by him in 
the cross-examination of said witnesses for the purpose of meeting their testi- 
mony on direct examination." 

After Mr. Ray has given Attorneys Clark and Clegg permission to introduce 
the foregoing objections, he asked Mr. Clark to produce the authority given 
him to make objection to the taking of the depositions. At the beginning of the 
hearing, or at the time that the depositions were introduced, he had taken Mr. 
Clark's verbal statement to the effect that he had been granted authority to 
act for Delegate Sulzer as a fact. 

Mr. Clark then failed to comply with Mr. Ray's request to see the telegram 
or other purported authority, according to Mr. Ray, who said that he gave 
him until 5 o'clock last night to produce the desired information and then 
struck the objections from the record of depositions in the matter. 



Contestant's Exhibit J. 

Eagle, Alaska, February 5, 1917. 
Deak Judge : Have intended tor some time to drop you a line re election. We 
still have hopes you will win out — or, rather, in. 

At the election here last November, four Signal Corps men voted. They re- 
side on a military reservation and are the first soldiers ever allowed to vote 
here, claiming the right under the Territorial act. I understand they inquired 
of Judge Bunnell, when he was here, if they could vote, and he said he be- 
lieved they could, but referred them to the district attorney, who later advised 
they could vote. 

With kind regards to Mrs. Wickersham and George, and hoping for your 
success, I am, 

Sincerely yours, U. G. Myers. 

Hon. James Wickebsham, 

Washington, D. C. 



Contestant's Exhibit K. 

FTelegram.] 

Washington, D. C, May 12-13, 1917. 
U. G. Myers, Eagle, Alaska: 

Have personal interview with each soldier who voted November 7 last at 
Eagle and ask each if he voted for Charles A. Sulzer. Send me night letter, 
giving full name and answer yes or no. Show this telegram to each soldier 
and ask him to answer faithful. 

James Wickersham. 



confirmation. 

[Telegram.] 

Eagle, Alaska, May 14, 1917. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
Compliance with your night letter : Barney R. Peppersack, Squire Lowry, 
and Charles B. Murphy answer " Yes " ; James S. McDowell declines to 
answer. 

U. G. Myers. 



notice of deposition. 

To the above-named contestee, Charles A. Snlser, his attorneys, J. A. Sellenthal, 

and John R. Winn, esquires: 

You will please take notice that on Monday, the 6th day of August, A. D. 
1917, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, the contestant, above named, 
13289—17 15 



226 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

will take the deposition of Charles W. Hawksworth, David Waggoner, Mabel 
Le Roy, Esther Gibson, and J. W. Bell, before H. B. Le Fevre, a notary public, 
at his office in the Seward Building, in the town of Juneau, Alaska ; said wit- 
nesses to be tlien and there produced by tlie said .lames Wickersham ; and the 
evidence of said witnesses then and there adduced will be submitted by James 
AA^ickershtim in the above-entitled cause. The said proceeding before said 
notary public will be continued from time to time until the said deposition has 
been taken. 

Dated this 2d day of August, A. D. 1917. 

James Wickeksham, 
By John Rustgabd, 

Attorney for Contestant. 



This is to certify that under and pursuant to the foregoing and hereto at- 
tached notice of deposition : 

The deposition of David Waggoner was taken before the undersigned notary 
public, at his office in the town of Juneau, Alaska, between the hours of 10 
o'clock a. m. and 4 p. m., on the 6th day of August, A. D. 1917, beginning at 
the hour of 10 o'clock ; John Rustgard, Esq., appearing as attorney for contest- 
ant, James Wickersham, and J. A. Hellenthal and John R. Winn, Esqs., appear- 
ing as attorneys for contestee, Charles A. Sulzer. 

Before the said witness, David Waggoner, was sworn as witness on behalf of 
contestant and before any proceedings were had, the following objection was 
made by J. A. Hellenthal to the taking of the deposition : 

Counsel for the contestee, Charles A. Sulzer. object to the taking of testimony 
under notice served, for the following reasons : 

' In the first place, the notice does not give the place of residence of any of 
the witnesses, and is in that regard insufficient under the statute, and for the 
further reason that under the statute five days' notice must be given, whereas 
the notice gives but four days' notice. 

DAVID WAGGONER, a -witness on behalf of the contestant, being first duly 
sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as 
follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. Rustgabd: 

Q. State your full name, Mr. Waggoner. — A. David Waggoner. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Juneau, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived in Juneau? — ^A. Since the 28th day of September. 
1914. 

Q. What is your occupation ? — ^A. Presbyterian minister of the native missions 
in Juneau and Douglas. 

Q. Prior to coming to Juneau, where did you live? — A. At Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. Whereabouts is Klawock? — ^A. About midway on the west coast of Prince 
of Wales Island. 

Q. How long did you reside at Klawock or in that neighborhood? — ^A. My 
home was in Klawock from about August 11, 1901, until the 26th of September, 
1914. 

Q. At that time and during that period, you were the Presbyterian missionary 
among the Hyda Indians in that neighborhood? — ^A. Not all the time. Up until 
the summer of 1906 I had charge of the Thlinget Indians at Klawock and in 
that neighborhood, and the Hyda Indians also from the spring of 1906 until 
about September, 1914. 

Q. The Thlingets and the Hydas are two distinct races of Indians, speaking 
two distinct languages? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted at Hydaburg, Mr. Waggoner? — ^A. Quite generally. 

Q. What time was Hydaburg established? — A. In the fall of 1911. between 
September and November. 

Q. That is an Indian village established for Hyda Indians on the Government 
reservation created for that purpose? — A. The Indians were there prior to the 
establishing of the reservation, but the reservation was established upon their 
request, and it was for Hydas and other natives. But the proceedings were 
tinder way at the time they went there is September. 

Q. The Executive order creating the reservation was not actually signed 
until after the Hydas had established themselves in that place? — A. I think 
In 1912. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 227 

Q. But the proceedings to have the territory segregated as an Indian reserve 
aiad commenced prior to tlie establishment of the Hydas at that place? 

Mr. Hellenthal. I make the objection that nothing in the evidence of these 
Hyda Indians can be reserved as rebuttal testimony, and I make tlie further 
objection that the Hyda Settlement is not an Indian reservation, but a mere 
withdrawal of Government land for the use of the Indians by Executive order. 
If any testimony is to be adduced tending to show that this is a reservation, 
tlie Executive proclamation is the best evidence. 

Mr. RusTGAED. You may answer the question. 

A. I think it had. 

Q. At the present time are there any but Hyda Indians living on that reser- 
vation? — A. I believe there are. I think there are a few Thlingets — very few — 
and a few white married men, and the Government employees. 

Q. Can anybody reside on that reservation except those who have the permit 
of the Government officials? 

Mr. Hellenthax. I object on the grounds that that is not rebuttal or the 
i>est evidence. 

Mr. RusTGAED. Answer the question. 

A. I think the permission is somehow arranged for through the town council. 

Q. The permission must b^e had through the town council? — ^A. Yes; that's 
what I think. 

Q. The reservation is primarily in charge of the United States Bureau of 
Education? 

Mr. Hellenthax. I object on the grounds of this not being rebuttal and of 
the best evidence. 

Mr. RusTGAED. Well, the Bureau of Education built the wharf there? 

A. The natives built the wharf. 

Q. Who furnished the money ?— A. The natives. 

Q. The Bureau of Education built the school? — A. The school building. 

Q. And the United States Bureau of Education paid the teachers? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. They do not at the village have what is known as the Territorial school, 
under the Nelson Act? — A. All native schools are under the Bureau of Educa- 
tion, inside and outside of incorporated towns. 

Q. There is no other school at Hydaburg except the one operated by the 
Bureau of Education? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. I hand yoij here a list of names purporting to be a certified copy of the 
registration list of the election for Delegate from Alaska, held at the precinct 
of Sulzer, Alaska, November 7, 1916, and I ask you to read from that list the 
names of such Indians as you know to be residents of Hydaburg. Read the 
names slowly enough so that Mrs. Burbach can get them. 

Objection by Mr. Hellenthal, counsel for contestee, Charles A. Sulzer, on 
the ground that the testimony sought to be elicited is not rebuttal ; that no 
testimony was taken on the part of the contestee in relation to the election 
held in the precinct of Sulzer, and that there is therefore nothing to rebut. The 
objection being especially urged because the contestee would have no opportunity 
to bring witnesses to prove or disprove any facts in relation to the election in 
the Sulzer precinct ; and the time for taking testimony on the part ot the 
contestee having expired and there being no provision under which the contestee 
may take further testimony after the rebuttal testimony now being taken on 
the part of the contestant has been completed ; and the further objection is made 
to this testimony that the same is irrelevant and immaterial, there being no 
issue raised in the pleadings with reference to the validity or invalidity of the 
votes in the Sulzer precinct, and no claim made that persons voted who had no 
right to vote. 
Mr. RusTGARD. Read the names. 

A. Alex Peele, George Haldane, Peter Nathlan, Benson Skulthka, J. S. Brown, 
Paul D. Morrison, Fred Grant, Charlie Scott, Mason Frank, Powell Charles, 
Thaddeus Isaacs, Matthew Scott, Jack George, David Nathlan, Boyd Nakathla, 
Albert Nathkang, Sara Douglas, Mike George, Luke Frank, Fred Wallace, 
Alex Yealthtatze, Robert Edenshaw, Hugh Rogo, James George, David Jason, 
AVillie Skulthka, Edwin Scott, Alex Spoon ; these are all that I know that live 
at Hydaburg. 

It is agi'eed by and between counsel that the objection hereto made to the 
preceding ques'tion, with reference to the taking of testimony concerning the 
election at Sulzer precinct, shall go to each and all questions bearing upoa 
that subject without specifically repeating the same. 



228 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

O On this list is tlie name of Katie Nelson. Do you know who she Is?— 
A She is the wife of Harry Nelson. She is a Hyda woman, but probably 
Nelson himself lives at Sulzer. . ^.t, 

Q. You do not know where she lives?— A. I do not know whether in the 
town of Sulzer or Hydaburg. 

Q. She is recognized as a Hyda Indian?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I also ask you, in regard to Mrs. Valensolo— she is the wife of Joe 
Valensolo. Now, is she a Hyda Indian?— A. Yes, sir. ^ „^ . , 

Q But she used to live at Hydaburg?— A. I think not. She was married 
and living with her husband prior to the establishment of Hydaburg. 

Q Where did she live then?— A. Mostly at Howkan. 

Q Howkan is an old Hyda village?— A. Now deserted. 

Q. Now deserted?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But until the establishment of Hydaburg, Howkan was one of the Hyda 
villages?— A. Yes, sir. „ , ^ 

Q. Another Hyda village was Klmquan?— A. Yes, sir. v^„ . ,„.fK 

Q. Hydaburg is a consolidation of these two Hyda villages?— A. Yes, with 

^ Q^Have* either^ of the counsel for Sulzer in this contest called upon you 
recently to ascertain what you were expected to testify to in this case?— A. No, 
sir That is, nothing in regard to what I should say here. 

6 Well what I mean is this, Mr. Waggoner: After the notice was given 
to take your deposition, you were called upon by them with reference to these 
fjipts'- A Yes sir. 

Q At that time they knew you were to be a witness?— A. Yes, sir. 

q' And they told you they knew you were to be a witness. ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were called upon by Mr. Hellenthal.— A. Mr. Sy " Hellenthal. 

Q. Yes ; he is now present in the room ; and a brother and partner of J. A. 
Hellenthal, in business.— A. I believe so. ^ ^^ ^„ ^ a. 4. a 

Q. What time did he call upon you with reference to that?— A. Saturday — 
Friday — Friday evening. 

Mr. RusTGA^D. I think that is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Hellenthal : 

Q Mr Waggoner, you have lived at Klawock and Hydaburg for a number of 
years?— A. Klawock has always been my home before I came to Juneau. 
Hydaburg was part of my parish for four years. , 

Q The two villages are neighboring villages —A. Fifty miles apait. 

Q. The Alaskan natives residing in these two villages are in about the same 
state of civilization? — A. About. * t i, 

Q You have been acquainted with them for a number of years?— A. I have 
known the Thlingets at Klawock since August 11, 1901, and most of the Hydas 

^^^O^ You knew* many of these Hyda Indians before they moved to Hydaburg?— 

A. Yes, sir. Because of the fact that I acted as their minister, and they also 

were visitors at the town of Klawock. „ . ^r ^ i. ^* 

Q. They were then residing in the neighboring villages?— A. You speak ot 

the Hydas? „ , ^ t^,. 

Q Yes — A They were residing at Howkan and Klinquan. 

O Thev had been residing in these villages ever since the white man came 
to Alaska?— A. Yes ; I think so. I do not know when the Hydas came to Alaska. 

Q. It was long before the whites came?— A. I think so. 

Q Now the names that you have read from the Sulzer list of voters are all 
natives of' Alaska with whom you are quite well acquainted ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q Is it not a fact Mr Waggoner, that all those men and women, while they 
are Alaskan natives/either of the whole or mixed blood, have long since severed 
their tribal relations?— A. You mean those of Hydaburg? 

O Yes- the names that you have read in the record.— A. The men are the 
residents 'of Hydaburg, because they have definitely severed their connections 
with the old customs of the Hydas at the old villages. That was the reason 
for the founding of the Hydaburg village. . a xr^ 

Q. There is no such thing as a tribal house at Hydaburg?— A. No. 

Q. Nor at Klawock?— A. No. 

O The names you have read in the record are all young men who have sev- 
ered their tribal connections before 1911?— A. Not all of them. There are a 
few middle-aged men who had not given up the tribal customs prior to about- 
well, a few years ago. 



WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 229 

Q. In 1911 most all of them gave up their tribal relations and established the 
town of Hydaburg to carry out this very purpose. All of them, when they took 
up residence in Hydaburg, had to declare that they gave up tribal relations. 
There were a few names there that did not come in at the beginning of the 
town. They came in shortly afterwards, did they not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, the town of Hydaburg is not in any sense an Indian reservation, 
where Indians are kept and herded as they are on reservations in the States? — ■ 
A. No, sir. The definition of reservation is a little different in Alaska. 

Q. The town of Hydaburg consists merely of a portion of public land with- 
drawn with the purpose of giving the Indians a place on which to build a model 
site? — A. And in which to develop resources on their own initiative. 

Q. The Indians of Hydaburg come and go as they please? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is no Government Indian agent to regulate their affairs? — ^A. 
No, sir. 

Q. They live in that community just as the white people of Juneau live in the 
town of Juneau? — A. I think so. 

Q. Have the same liberties of coming and going? — A. As far as their move- 
ments are concerned ; yes. 

Q. The Government does not in anywise seek to restrict their movements or 
otherwise control them? — A. No, sir. Not physically. 

Q. The Government has established there a school? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With the view of educating them. But, aside from this, the Indians 
manage their affairs? — A. The Government intends to educate them in business 
and town life as well as school. 

Q. All the names that you have read on the record are names of men and 
women who can read and write the English language? — A. I can not tell that 
definitely. Nearly all can read and write. There may be some who can not. 

Q. They can speak English? — A. Yes. I have held conversations with all of 
these. 

Q. In the English language? — A. Yes. 

Q. They are living in their separate homes like white folks? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They have all adopted the habits of civilized life? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Their houses are such as form the abodes of white men? — A. Of white men 
in the same circumstances ; yes. 

Q. Some larger and some smaller ?^A. Some are quite comfortable and fur- 
nished very well, and some are not so well furnished. Some are about the 
average home of the poorer class of workingmen. 

Q. They have a store at Hydaburg? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A cooperative store? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The stock is owned by the Indians? — A. Nearly all. I believe provisions 
have been made for the superintendent of the school to hold a certain number 
of shares, so that he may be one of the directors of the business. The stock is 
held by the natives, except one or more shares have been allowed to the school 
superintendent in order that he may be on the board of directors. 

Q. The school superintendent purchases a certain number of shares? — A. I do 
not know that the constitution states definitely how many shares he may hold. 

Q. The store is managed by the natives? — A. By the board of directors, with 
the storekeeper. 

Q. The storekeeper is one of the Hydaburg Indians? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are there no other stores at Hydaburg? — A. Yes, sir ; there were the last 
time I was there, but owned by individual natives. 

Q. Also owned by natives? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q, And are conducted solely by them? — A. By each person; yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. AVaggoner, that the inhabitants at Hydaburg and 
Klawock are intelligent fishermen and mechanics?^ — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And carry on their avocation in the same manner that white men do under 
similar circumstances? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not a fact that some of these men are highly skilled mechanics? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On gas boats as well as otherwise? — A. Yes ; and some are boat builders? 

Q. Carpenters? — A. Yes. 

Q. Machinists? — A. Yes ; some to a degree — the result of their training. 

Q. They received their training that you mention in the Indian schools? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not a fact that some of these men work in the mines? — A. I think) 
not, in Hydaburg or Klawock. I do not know of any of these Indians working 
in the mines. 



230 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Waggoner, that one of the young men whose mothei 
resides in one of these communities, by the name of Taylor, is a commissioned 
ollicer in the United States Army ?— A. Yes ; so I was told by the superintendent 
of the Indian school at Cheraawa. The mother belongs at Klawock. 

Q. Is it not also a fact that one of the young natives, raised in one of these' 
communities, is now serving the United States in the capacity of recruiting 
officer in the State of New York, teaching the white people of the most populous 
city in the United States their duty as American citizens? — A. I believe so. 

Q. Mr. Waggoner, as an American citizen and as a man thoroughly familiar 
with the conditions in these Indian villages, do you know of any reason why 
these men should not be given the right to vote? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I ob.iect to that as simply calling for the opinion of the witness 
and does not call for any statement of facts. 

Mr. Hellenthal. Question withdrawn. That is all. 

Redirect examination. 

Q. The boy that you referred to as teaching in New York; is he one of these 
voters? — A. No, sir. 

Q. What is his name? — A. Charlie Cutter ; he is always known as Chief Eagle 
Horse where he sings on the circuit. 

Q. Where was he born? — A. At Klawock. 

Q. One of the Thlinget natives? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long since he left Alaska? — A. He has been at school and on the 
lyceum circuit more than 16 years. 

Q. He has been exhibiting himself for money? — ^A. He has been singing. 

Q. Singing? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was he educated? — A. First at Sitka' and then at Chemawa, Oreg. 

Q. What is his special duty in New York at the present time? — A. As far as 
I know from seeing and reading the papers, he is recruiting for the Government. 

Q. For what purpose? — A. For the war. 

Q. In the Navy or Army? — A. I suppose in the Army. 

Q. You have read about that? — A. Yes. 

Q. He is held out as a curiosity? — A. I suppose so. 

Q. You do not mean to say that all these natives whotge names you have given 
at the present time are capable of doing the same as tluit native mentioned who 
is in New York? — A. You mean on the list? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Not all, but most of them are equally intelligent. 

Q. You referred to the one who is a commissioned officer? — ^A. Yes. He is 
the son of William Taylor, of Wrangell. I was told he was a commissioned 
officer by the superintendent of the Chemawa School. 

Q. William Taylor is a white man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the mother a Thlinget? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long since Taylor lived in Alaska? — A. He has been going to school 
two or three years. I think he has been up every summer. 

Q. Attending at Chemawa, Oreg.? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You said something about these Hydas, when coming to Hydaburg, had to 
sign a statement that they would abandon tribal relations. Will you explain 
further what that was? — A. I didn't mean to say that; if I did I made a mis- 
take in saying " sign." They all had to give their consent to the requirements 
that are specified in the law of 1887 in regard to the Indian citizenship ; that 
they had severed the tribal relations ; were observing the American marriage 
laws and inheritance laws, and had adopted the customs and ways of civilized 
life. 

Q. Who provided for that? — ^A. That was provided for in the ordinances of 
the town council, as I understand it. 

Q. This is an Indian town council? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is a council organized under the Territorial law of Alaska, 1915? — 
A. Not at first. It was simply a council organized by themselves in 1911, and 
then when the law of 1915 was promulgated, they formed the Indian organi- 
zation. 

Q. That is what is known here as an " Indian village government," provided 
by the law of 1915?— A. Of 1915. 

Q. And that Indian council determined the qualifications of the residents 
of Hydaburg? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is the council that promulgated the rules which you have re- 
ferred to?— A. Yes. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 



231 



Q. This store which you have also referred to was established under the 
supervision and by the assistance of the superintendent of schools furnished 
by the Bureau of Education? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And was established for the purpose of training the Indians in business? — 
A. Partly so. Partly as a means of saving. 

Q. In connection with this testimony I offer in evidence what purports to 
be a certified copy of the registration books of the last election held at Sulzer 
precinct ; but before I olfer it, I wish the records to show that these pencil 
marks made in the form of check marks to the left of the names and pencil 
writings to the right, are marks made by yourself, and not a part of the 
original list of the certified names. — A. I have made marks here [indicating]. 

Q. They are marks which were put there by yourself? — A. All of them. 

Q. I simply want the records to show so that there will be no question. — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I now offer this list in evidence, to be marked " Exhibit 1." 

Mr. Hellenthal. I make an objection to the offer on the ground that it is 
not rebuttal and not the best evidence; and on the further ground that it is 
not a copy of anything. That is all. 

Mr. RusTGAED. I omitted to ask you about Sam E. Thomas. Is he a Hyda? 

A. No, sir.- He is a Thlinget. 

Q. Does he reside at Hydaburg? — A. Probably resides at Sulzer. Probably 
there for work purposes. 

Q. Do you know whether or not he ever resided at Hydaburg? — A. Inter- 
mittently. He formerly married a Hyda woman. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Hellenthai, : 

Q. Referring to the last-mentioned gentleman — Thomas — he also has aban- 
doned his tribal relations,? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is living the habits of civilized life? — A. I think so. 

Q. Just a question with reference to all of these men: Many of them are 
half-breeds and mixed blood? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There are few of them who are full-blooded Indians? — A. There are quite 
a number of them full blooded. 

Q. Some are full blooded and some are mixed blood? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hetxenthal. That is all. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. That is all. 

It is admitted by counsel for contestee that a duplicate copy of the hereto 
attached notice of deposition was given, one to J. A. Hellenthal and another ta 
John R. Winn, in Juneau, Alaska, on Thursday, the 2d day of August. A. D. 
1917. 

David Waggonee. 



Exhibit L. 



Registration list for the November 7, 1916, election for Delegate from Alaska^ 
etc., from Sulzer, Alaska : 



No. Name. 

5181. W. H. Link. 

5182. H. P. Fish. 

5183. J. W. Ridmberak. 

5184. Jack Spath. . 

5185. Thomas Hughes. 

5186. .John Wilcot. 

5187. Peter Relda. 

5188. Harry Nehan. 

5189. K. Kuodwen. 

5190. .losephine Kilpatrick. 

5191. R. L. Kilpatrick. 

5192. Blanche R. Wright. 

5193. W. Thos. Wright. 

5194. Herman West. 

5195. M. E. Gould. 

5196. C. G. McLeod. 

5197. W. D. McLeod. 



No. Name. 

5198. R. J. Pollock. 

5199. W. Denham. 

5200. Katie Nelson. 

5201. Mrs. Valensolo. 

5202. J. D. Wynne. 

5203. Elmer Olsby. 

5204. J. L. Bulkley, jr. 

5205. Alex Peele. 

5206. Sam. E. Thomas. 

5207. Oran Kiteley. 

5208. George Haldane. 

5209. Peter Nathlan. 

5210. Benson Skutthka. 

5211. Thomas Robertson. 

5212. Frank Box. 

5213. William L. Moore. 

5214. John Dempsey. 



232 



WIGKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 



No. Name. 

5215. .7. O. Thorpe. 

5216. Frank Mullane. 

5217. O. A. Emery. 

5218. J. S. Brown. 

5219. Paul D. Morrison. 

5220. Fred Grant. 

5221. J. L. Howe. 

5222. A. J. Young. 

5223. Jos. G. Yatensolo. 

5224. Charlie Scott. 

5225. IMasou Frank. 

5226. Powell Charles. 

5227. Thadfleus Isaacs. 

5228. Matthew Scott. 

5229. Jack George. 

5230. David Nathlan. 

5231. Boyd Nakathla. 

5232. Albert Natkang. 

5233. Sam Douglas. 

5234. Lewis Torre. 



No. Name. 

5235. Blike George. 

5236. Frank South. 

5237. Luke Frank. 
.5238. Fred Wallace. 

5239. Alex Aiettatzie. 

5240. Robert Edenshow. 

5241. Hugh Kogo. 

5242. A. Shellhouse. 

5243. James George. 

5244. David Jason. 

5245. AVillie Skultka. 

5246. Edwin Scott. 

5247. Alex Sputin. 
.5248. H. M. Stantien. 
5249. W. S. Wood. 
52.50. Chas. A. Wood. 
5251. M. E. M. Wood. 
52.52. Mary M. Wynne. 

5253. Arthur Barker. 

5254. Gertriide Barker. 



United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 

I, G. C. Winn, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly com- 
missioned and sworn, hereby certify that T have in my possession and under 
my control the official registration and tally book for the November 7, 1916, 
election for Delegate from Alaska and other officers, for the precinct of Sultzer, 
first division. Alaska, and I further certify that the foregoing list is a true 
and correct list of all voters as the same appears in said registration book 
above mentioned. 

Witness my hand and official seal this 2d day of August, 1917. 

[SEAL.] G. C. Winn, 

Notary Public. Alaska. 

My commission expires July 22, 1921. 



CERTIFICATE. 

This is to certify that the foregoing deposition was taken upon oral ques- 
tions made and oral answers given, and taken in shorthand by Mrs. Pauline 
Burbach, under my instruction and direction, and immediately thereafter 
transcribed by her, and after having been so transcribed it was read and ex- 
amined and corrected by the witness, David Waggoner, who thereupon signed 
his name to said deposition. That before said deposition was taken, the said 
stenographer, Mrs. Pauline Burbach, was duly sworn to cori*ectly report the 
said testimony in shorthand and correctly transcribe the same to the best of 
her ability; and that the same is a true and correct statement of the deposition 
made by the said witness, David Waggoner, at the time and place above men- 
tioned. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this 6th 
day of August, A. D. 1917. 

H. B. Le Febre. 
'Notary Public for Alaska. 

3ry commission expires January 7, 1918. 



TESTIMONY FOR C0NTE8TEE. 

NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE FOR TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES. 

To the Hon. James Wickersham, contestant : 

You are hereby notified that the testimonj^ by depositions of the follow- 
ing-named witness on behalf of the contestee will be taken before Frank J, 
Hayes, notai*y public for Alaska, at the dates and places hereinafter stated : 

1. The testimony of Arthur Lang, wliose residence is Valdez, Alaska, will be 
taken at the office of Donohoe & Dimond, Valdez, Alaska, at 2 o'clock p. m, of 
July 2, 1917. 

2. The testimony of Karl Armstrong, P. D. Blodgett, Cecil King, and other 
witnesses, whose names to contestee are unknown, all of whom reside at or near 
Kodiak, Alaska, will be taken at the office of the deputy United States marshal, 
Kodiak, Alaska, on July 8, A. D. 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m., or as soon thereafter 
as possible, depending upon the arrival of the steamship Admiral Evans at the 
said port. 

3. The testimony of Ivan Derenoff, Simeon Berestofl:, Ivan Alhoon, Xenophant 
Gregorioff, Logan Chanun, Radion Malutin, Mafrey Agick, Tumofry Naya, Ivan 
GregoriofC, Gregory Yakonak, Wasele Eshnwak, John Yakonak, Alexander Lukin, 
Alex Knagin, sr., Nastacia Kilegman, Charles W. Pajoman, Wasele Apolon, Paul 
Nekasoff, Alexandra Nekrasoff, Matrona Pajoman, Michael Boskofsky, Nicholai 
Shangin, Sergay Sharatin, Emellian Petellin, Alexander Simeonoff, Alfred Nel- 
son, Martin Larsen, John P. Johansen, John J. Keegan, Louis Berg, Julius Fors- 
man, John Taussvauk, and other witnesses, whose names to contestee are un- 
known, all of whom reside at or near Afognak, Alaska, will be taken at the 
public school house at Afognak, Alaska, on July 9, A. D. 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m., 
or within one day of 24 hours after the time of the arrival of the steamship 
Admiral Evans at Kodiak, Alaska, upon her voyage now scheduled for arrival 
there on July 8, 1917. 

4. The testimony of William Lowell, Mike Dolchok, Steve Sorosnikoff, Anton 
Dolchak, Samuel MerchurofE, Gregory Gory, Constantine Luko, Fred Cameron, 
J. A. Hart, S. Stoffer, Zaker Chonka, Fred Jarger, Nick SakolofE, Saverian 
Jakaloff, Lizzie Block, Irene Jackobson, Agnes Barnes, Mrs. George R. King. 
Milo Hurlburt, M. J. Doyle, R. B. Markle, and Gregory Foxy, and other wit- 
nesses, whose names to contestee are unknown, all of whom reside at or near 
Seldovia, Alaska, will be taken at the office of the deputy United States Marshal 
at Seldovia, Alaska, on July 14, A. D. 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m., or as soon there- 
after as possible, depending upon the awpival of the steamship Admiral Farragut 
from Kodiak upon her voyage now scheduled for arrival at Seldovia on July 
14, A. D. 1917. 

Hereof you will take due notice. 

Charles A. Sulzer, 

Contestee. 
By T. J. Donohoe, 

Attorney for Contestee. 

PROOF OF service OF NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE FOR TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

witnesses. 
State of Washington, 

County of King, ss: 
A. WINDT, being duly sworn, says that he is a citizen of the United States, of 
lawful age, and a resident of the city of Seattle, in King County, Wash,; 
that he knows personnlly the above-named contestant, James Wickersham; that 
on June 27, A. D. 1917, affiant received the foregoing notice of time and place 
for taking depositions in the contest above entitled, and on the same date affiant 
personally delivered a duplicate thereof, signed by Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, 
by Thomas J. Donohoe. attorney for contestee, to the said James Wickersham 

233 



234 WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

in person, at Auburn, within King County, Wash, ; that said service was marte 
by delivery as aforesaid to the said Wickersham in person by this atiiant in 
person, at about 4.50 o'clock p. ra. of the said June 27, A. D. 1917. 

A. WiNDT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of June, A. D. 1917. 
[seal.] R. M. Jones, 

Notary Public for Washington, residing at Seattle. 

Contestee's Exhibit 1. Fbank J. Hayes, Notaby Public. 

INSTEUCTIONS TO JUDGES OF ELECTION. 

Voters must register. — Before any voter shall receive his or her official ballot 
ho or she shall sign his or her name in the registration book, which signature 
sliall be a statement of said voter to the effect that he or she is qualified to vote. 
One of the judges of election shall keep said registration book. 

Qualifications of voters. — Section 22 of chapter 25, Session Laws of Alaska, 
3915. "An act to provide official ballots for elections in the Territory of Alaska," 
approved April 27, 1915, prescribes the qualifications of a voter as follows : 

"Any person of the age of 21 years or more who is a citizen of the United 
States, who has lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the judicial 
division in which he or she offers to cast his or her vote 30 days immediately 
preceding such election, shall be entitled to vote at all elections held therein : 
Provided, That all idiots, insane persons, and persons who have been convicted 
of an infamous crime are excluded from such right and privilege : And provided 
further. That no person shall be deemed to have lost his residence by reason of 
bis absence in the civil or military service of the Territory or the United States, 
nor while a student at any institution of learning ; nor while kept a public charge 
at any poorhouse or any other asylum ; nor while confined in any public prison ; 
rior while engaged in navigation of the waters of this Territory, of the United 
States, or the high seas ; absence from the Territory or said judicial division, 
or city or town wherein election is held, on business, shall not affect the question 
of residence, provided he or she has not claimed such right elsewliere. One of 
the said judges shall keep said registration book, and before any voter shall re- 
ceive his or her official ballot he or she shall sign his or her name in said book, 
which signature shall be a statement of said voter to the effect that he or she is 
qualified to vote under this act. 

" Sec. 23. Any person who can qualify as a legal voter in the division in which 
he or she attempts or offers to vote may qualify and vote in any election precinct 
in such division by subscribing to the qualifications required for registration 
in this section. Any person who makes a false statement of his or her qualifica- 
tions to vote shall be punished, upon conviction, by a fine of not less than $25 
nor more than $200 or by imprisonment in the Federal jail for not less than 10 
days nor more than 60 days, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion 
of the court." 

Election board. — The judges of election of each voting precinct shall constitute 
the election board for said precinct and shall supervise and have charge of the 
election therein. They shall secure and provide a place for holding the election 
and a suitable ballot box. They shall pass upon the qualification of the voter, 
and if he be found qualified receive and deposit his ballot in the ballot box, and 
shall canvass and make a return of the votes cast, as hereinafter provided. 

Election board to take oath. — The members of said election board in each pre- 
cinct, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall each severally take an 
oath, which shall be reduced to writing, before an oflicer qualified to administer 
oaths, to honestly, faithfully, and promptly perform the duties of then* positions ; 
and if no officer qualified to administer oaths be present or available, then any 
one of said duly appointed or selected judges of election may administer the 
necessary oath to said other two judges, and he shall afterwards in turn be 
sworn by one of them. 

Election judges to adiwmister oaths. — Each of said judges shall have authoi'ity 
to administer any oath to the voter necessary or proper under this act, and said 
judges shall have equal authority ; and in case of any question or disagreement 
over any matter during the course of said election, the decision of the majority 
of said judges shall govern. 

Clerks of election. — Two of the three judges of election in each voting precinct, 
outside of incorporated towns, ,to be selected by a majority of said judges shall 
also perfoorm the duties of clerks of election for that precinct ; the two judges 



^' WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 235 

performing- the duties of clerks shall be of different political parties; it shall 
be the duties of the clerks at each voting precinct to make a full written record 
of such election held in that precinct, and each of them shall keep a correct 
duplicate register and enter therein the names of the voters and the fact that 
they have voted, or have offered to vote and were refused, and a brief statement 
of the reasons for said refusal. 

Watchers. — Each of the candidates for the office of Delegate to Congress, at- 
torney general, and each of the candidates for the legislature shall be entitled 
to one watcher at each voting precinct, who shall be permitted to be present 
within the place of voting at such precinct, and in some place therein where he 
may at all times be in full view of every act done. Such watcher shall have the 
right to be present at all times from the opening of the polls until the ballots are 
finally counted and results certified by the election board. Each watcher shall 
be required to present to the election board proper credentials, signed by the 
candidate he represents, showing him to be the duly authorized watcher for 
such person. 

Vacancies on election board; how filled. — That in case any of the judges of 
election selected as herein provided for any precinct shall fail to appear and 
qualify at the time and place designated for the election for which they shall 
be appointed, then, in that event, the qualified voters present may, by a majority 
viva voce vote, select a suitable person or persons to fill the vacancy or vacancies 
in said election board, and the person or persons so selected shall qualify and 
serve on said election board with the same powers and in the same manner as if 
appointed as hereinbefore provided. 

When polling places open and close. — That the election board herein provided 
for shall keep the several polling places open for the reception of votes from 8 
o'clock a. m. until 7 o'clock p. m. on the day of election. The voting at said 
election shall be by official ballot. 

Ballot to be folded. — Such ballots shall be folded by the voter so as not to dis- 
close the vote, and by him handed to any one of the judges of election, who 
shall immediately, in the presence of the voter and of all the members of the 
election board, deposit the same, folded as aforesaid, in the ballot bos, where 
the same shall remain untouched until the polls are closed. At the time the 
ballot is so deposited the clerks of election shall each of them enter in his du- 
plicate register the name of the voter and the fact that he has voted. 

Booths to be provided at polling places. — That every polling place in the 
Territory shall be provided with booths or screens wherein the voter shall make 
his or her ballot. Provided, that not less than one both shall be furnished for 
each one hundred (100) votes or fractional part thereof, cast at the previous 
election. 

Official ballot to be given voter. — That when a voter enters the polling place 
he shall be given an official ballot by one of the election judges, with which he 
shall retire to the booth or screen and there mark the same for the candidates 
of his choice. 

Marred ballots. — That when a voter mars a ballot so that the legibility is 
destroyed, he may receive a second ballot from the judges of the election, and 
if necessary, a third ballot, but no more than three will be allowed, and the 
marred ballots must be preserved by the judges of the election and placed with 
the unused ballots. 

Judges may assist voters. — That any voter M'ho is blind or otherwise incap- 
able of marking his or her ballot, may demand that the judges of election assist 
him or her, and the judges of election shall do so. 

When no official ballot received. — That in any precinct where the election has 
been legally called and no official ballots have been received, the voters are per- 
mitted to write or print their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this 
event certify to the facts which prevented the use of the official ballots, which 
certificate must accompany and be made a part of the election returns. 

Stubs on official ballot. — At the top of the official ballot, above a perforated 
line are duplicate stubs bearing consecutive numbers; one of said stubs shall 
be retained by the election judges upon presenting the ballot to the voter ; upon 
the return of the voter from the voting booth, the other stub shall be torn from 
the ballot by the election judges and compared and retained. 

Voter challenged to take oath. — That any person offering to vote may be 
challenged by any election officer or any other person entitled to vote at the 
same polling place, or by any duly appointed watcher, and when so challenged, 
before being allowed to vote he shall make and subscribe to the following oath : 
"You do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that you are twenty- 
one (21) years of age and a citizen of the United States; that you have lived 



236 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

In the Territory of Alaska one year and have been a resident in the third 
judicial district for thirty days next preceding this election, and that you have 
not voted at this election." And when he has made such an affidavit, he shall be 
allowed to vote ; but if any person so challenged shall refuse or fail to take such 
oath and sign such affidavit, then his vote shall be rejected; and any person 
swearing falsely in any such affidavit shall be guilty of perjury and shall, upon 
conviction thereof, suffer punishment as is prescribed by law for persons guilty 
of perjury. 

Judges to certify result of election and forward to governor. — That the elec- 
tion board at each polling place, as soon as the polls are closed, shall immedi- 
ately publicly proceed to open the ballot box and count and canvass the votes cast, 
and they shall thereupon under their hands and seals, make out in duplicate a 
certificate of the result of said election, specifying the number of votes, in words 
and figures, cast for each candidate, and they shall then immediately carefully 
and securely seal up in one envelope one of said duplicate certificates and one of 
the registers of voters, all the ballots cast, and all affidavits made, and mail 
such envelope, with such papers inclosed, at the nearest post office by registered 
mail, if possible, duly addressed to the Governor of Alaska at his place of resi- 
dence, with the postage prepaid thereon. 

Duplicate certificate to be sent clerk. — The other duplicate certificate and reg- 
ister of votes, with the oaths of the judges of election, the judges of election 
shall at once seal up in an envelope addressed to the clerk of the district court 
for the division in which the precinct is situate, at his place of residence, with 
the postage thereon prepaid and deposit the same in the nearest post office, by 
registered mail, if possible. And the said clerk shall, as soon as he receives 
the said dupliciite certificate, at once make out and duly mail to the governor 
of Alaska a certified copy of such certificate. 

Judges to certify when voter is assisted. — Where an elector is incapable under 
the law of marking his own ballot, and he is assisted in doing so by the judges 
of election, said judges of election shall sign the certificates on the back and 
outside the " official ballot," which reads as follows : " We certify that the 
within ballot was marked by us for an elector incapable under the law of mark- 
ing his own ballot, and as directed by him." 

Collusion of election officers. — If any inspector or judge of any such election 
shall knowingly permit any elector to cast a second vote at any such election, or 
shall knowingly permit any person not a qualified elector to vote at any such 
election, such inspector or judge of election shall be guilty of a felony and be 
incapable of holding any public office in this Territory for five years thereafter. 

Officers attempting to influence voter. — If any inspector, judge, or clerk of an 
election shall attempt to induce, by persuasion, menace, or reward, or promise 
thereof, any elector to vote for any person, such inspector, judge, or clerk shall 
be guilty of a felony. 

Tampering loith ballot by officer. — If any judge, inspector, clerk, or any other 
officer of an election shall open or mark, by folding or otherwise, any ticket 
presented by such elector, at such election, or attempt to find out the names 
thereon, or suffer the same to be done by any other person, before such ticket is 
deposited in the ballot box, such judge, inspector, or clerk shall be guilty of a 
felony. 

CONTESTEE'S EXHIBIT No. 2. FRANK J. HAYES, NOTARY PUBLIC. 

Official ballot. (Omitted in printing.) 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 3. Frank ,T. Hayes, Notary Public. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 

Frank B. Hall, being first duly sworn according to law, on his oath deposes 
and says : 

That he is a deputy marshal in the office of L. T. Erwin, United States mar- 
shal for the fourth judicial division of the District of Alaska; that he knows 
Louis Klopsch, and has known him for several years past; that for several 
years last past said Louis Klopsch has been an actual resident of the town of 
Fairbanks, fourth judicial division. Territory of Alaska; that from about the 
12th day of June, 1916, up to and including the 1st day of November, 1916, the 
said Louis Klopsch was the editor of the Fairbanks Times, a newspaper which 
was published daily, Mondays excepted, from about said 12th day of June, 
1916, until on or about the 7th day of October, 1916, and said Loiiis Klopsch 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 



237 



resided during all of said time within ^the limits of the incorporated town of 
Fairbanks, Alaska ; that on or about the 7th day of October, 1916, the said 
Fairbanks Times ceased publication, and thereafter and until about the 1st day 
of November, 1916, the said Louis Klopsch resided within said town and was 
engaged daily in said town in closing up the affairs of the Fairbanks Times 
Publishing Co. ; that on or about the 1st day of November, 1916, the said Louis 
Klopsch left said town of Fairbanks, Alaska, on one of the stages of the North- 
ern Commercial Co. for Chitina, Alaska. 

And, further, affiant saith not, 

Frank B. Haul. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, at Fairbanks, Alaska, on this 13th day of 
December, A. D. 1916. 

[SEAi.] G. V. Ckeamek, 

Notary Public in and for the Territory of Alaska. 

My commission expires March 30, 1919. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 4. Frank J. Hayes, Notary Public. 
Election register and tally book. (Omitted in printing.) 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 5 of Arthur Long's Deposition. 



Henry Logan. 

Henry Ohlson. 

Charles Carlsan. 

James Plegtrom. 

William Rohde. 

William (his x mark) Lowell. 

Christian Petersen. 

S. StofPer. 

Axel Michelson. 

Andy Johnson. 

Mike Dolchok. 

Semee Merewu. 

W. J. McKeon. 

Steve E. Sorokorikoff, 

G. M. Chambers. 

T. O. Perry. 

George D. Slayback. 

John A. Nelson. 

Edward Jensen. 

F, J. Cameron. 

Peter C. Garlich. 

Olga Holmstram. 

P. F. C. Bellman. 

Antone Dolchak. 

N. I. Greive. 

E. R. Bogart. 

R. B. Markle. 

M. J. Doyle. 

•Tuanita Anderson. 

Thomas Moore. 

Ole Skaar. 

Albert Peterson. 

Samuel (his x mark) MercurofC. 

W. M. Blake. 

Gregory (his x mark) Fry. 

Frederick Nelson. 

Constantin (his x mark) Lucko. 

Gregory (his x mark) Kalango. 

J. A. Hart. 

R. N. McFadden. 

Albert Osness. 

E. I. Ammudsen. 

Edward Hegner. 



John Aabenak. 

Matilda A. Greive. 

Zakar (his x mark) Chonkna. 

Fred (his x mark) Jager. 

Nick (his x mark) Sakoloff. 

James K. Hallun, 

Saverian (his x mark) Jakaloff. 

W. A. Keller. 

George P. Griffiths. 

Fred Sanpe. 

James Linder. 

Gollak Ollestad. ^ 

Mrs. Mary Claghorn. 

Mrs. Hattie Johnson. 

Mrs. Sallie Bowen. 

Milo Hulburt. 

Thomas Repetta. 

Mrs. Bogart. 

Mrs. Ritchin. 

Christian Spillum. 

U. S. Ritchie. 

Eda O. Dwyer. 

Albert Fillmore. 

F. D. Decker, 
Minnie Cameron. 
Elizabeth Herbert. 
Edward Carlson. 

G. W. Mitchell. 
C. B. Meyers. 

Lizzie (her x mark) Block. 

Irene Jacobson. 

Agnes (her x mark) Barnes. 

Annie Christiansen. 

J. Christiansen. 

Frank Brown. 

Keuben Barnes. 

George R. King. 

Mrs. George R. (her x mark) King. 

Jack Tansy. 

Edw. Husby. 

Barbara Husby. 

Lizzie Ward. 



238 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



CONTESTEE'S EXHIBIT No. 6 OF AkTHUK KiNG'S DEPOSITION. 



Ivan (his x mark) Derenoff, 

Ernest Strickler. 

Simeon (liis x mark) Berestoff. 

Ivan (liis x mark) Alhoon. 

Alfoney Malutin. 

Xenopliont (liis x mark) GregoriofE. 

John Taoshank. 

Logan (his x mark) Chanun. 

Radion (his x mark) Malutin. 

Malfey (his x mark) Agick. 

Peter Ciiespenopf. 

Tunafey (his x mark) Naya. 

Julius Forsman. 

Martin Lansen. 

Peter Kauan. 

Ivan (his x mark) Gregorioff. 

Gregory (his x mark) Yakonok. 

Wasele (his x mark) Eshunaval. 

Henry Wander. 

Charles B. Gundersen. 

Michael Sussman. 

John (his x mark) Yakonak. 

W. E. Baumann. 

Peter Chichenoflf, jr. 

Alexander (his x mark) Lukin. 

John P. Johnansoe. 

Tichon Sheratine. 

Alexy (his x mark) Knagin, sr. 

John Orloff. 

John Naumoff. 

Elia Knagin. 



Natalia Simeonoff. 

Irene Nelson, 

Nicholai Boskosky. 

Nastacia (his x mark) Kiligmen. 

Paul Chechenoff. 

William Chechenoff. 

Alexis Chechenoff. 

John J. Folstad. 

Charles W. Pajuman. 

O. C. Braun. 

Louis Berg. 

Arthur Marzan. 

Simeon Malutin. 

Wasele (his x mark) Apolon. 

E. Petellin. 

Alfred Nelson. 

Alexander Simeonoff. 

Mary Petellin. 

Willie Leahy Abbert. 

Matrona Pajoman. 

Paul (his X mark) Nekraisoff. 

Senophont Malictin. 

Horace Samuel Abberts. 

Alexander (his x mark) Nekrasoff. 

Andrew (his x mark) Shunagan. 

Michael (his x mark) Boskofsky. 

Nick Anderson. 

Theodore Gregorioff. 

Stephen Gregorieff. 

Nicholai (his x mark) Shangin. 

Sergay Sharotin. 



DEPOSITION OF AETHUB LANG, 

Be it remembered, that pursuant to the notice hereunto annexed, and at the 
hour of 2 o'clock p. m., on the 2d day of July, 1917, at the office of Donohoe & 
Dimond, in the town of Valdez, Territory of Alaska, before me, Frank J. Hayes, 
a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, personally appeared Arthur 
Lang, a witness produced on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, the above-named con- 
testee in the above-entitled contest now pending before the House of Representa- 
tives of the Congress of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, 
who by me being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, was then and there examined and interrogated by T, J, Donohoe, 
attorney for the said Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and the said contestant, 
James Wickersham, not being present, either in person or by attorney, said 
witness testified as follows : 

Q. State your name and residence. — ^A. Arthur Lang. I reside at Valdez, 
Alaska. 

Q. What is your official position? — A. Clerk of the district court for the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, third division. 

Q. Were you clerk of the district court, Territory of Alaska, third division, 
during the entire year of 1916? — A. I was. 

Q. Did you, as said clerk of said district court, cause to be prepared necessary 
election supplies to be furnished the judges of election in the various precincts 
throughout the third judicial division, Territory of Alaska, for the election to be 
held on the 7th day of November, 1916?— A. I did. 

Q. What did those election supplies consist of? — ^A. Two election register and 
tally books and one registration book; instructions to judges of election; pay 
rolls ; two official envelopes with registry stamp on each, one of which envelopes 
was addressed to the clerk of the court, Valdez, Alaska, and the other to the 
governor, Juneau, Alaska ; a copy of the wet and dry law for or against the sale 
of intoxicating liquor in the Territory of Alaska after December 31, 1917 ; and 
the official bollots. 

Q. You speak of two official envelopes included in the election supplies, one 
addressed to you at Valdez, Alaska, and the other to the governor of the Terri- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 239 

tory at Juneau. What was the business of these two envelopes? — A. So that 
one registration and tally book could be returned to me and be filed here and the 
other could be sent to the governor and be filed at Juneau. 

Q. Then these envelopes were for the judges of election to make their returns 
of election to the proper authorities as required by law ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You speak of instructions to judges of election being inclosed in these 
supplies sent by you to the various precincts. Have you a copy of those 
Instructions? — A. I have. 

Q. Will you turn to the second page of those instructions and read that por- 
■ tion referring to the question when official ballots were not received by the 
judges of election in time to be used at the election? — A. " That in any precinct 
where the election has been legally called and no official ballots have been 
received the voters are permitted to write or print their ballots, but the judges 
of election shall in this event certify to the facts which prevented the use of 
official ballots, which certificate must accompany and be made a part of tlve 
election returns." 

Q. Will you mark that paragraph by a red star on the copy now in your 
possession? Who prepared these instructions? — A. They were prepared by 
myself and Mr. T. P. Geraghty, my chief deputy, and were approved by Assist- 
ant United States Attorney W. A. Munley. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I now offer the instructions to judges of election just testified 
to by the witness and ask that it be marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 1 " and 
■attached to and made a part of this deposition. (" Exhibit No. 1 " marked and 
attached hereto.) 

Q. That portion of your instructions to judges of election that you have just 
read is an exact copy of section 21 of chapter 25 of the session laws of the year 
1915 of the Territory of Alaska, is it not? — A. It is. It is copied from the 
session laws. 

Q. You say you prepared, in accordance with chapter 25 of the session laws 
of the year 1915 of the Territory of Alaska, an official ballot to be used at the 
election in the third judicial division of the Territory of Alaska at the election 
which was held on the 7th day of November, 1916. Have you in your posses- 
sion at this time an exact copy of those official ballots? — A. I have. 

Q. I ask you to present it to the notary public before whom this deposition is 
being taken, have it marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 2," and made a part of 
jrour deposition. 

(Mr. Lang presents to notary public a copy of the official ballot used at the 
November 7, 1916, election and asks that the same be marked and attached to 
and be made a part of this deposition. " Exhibit No. 2 " marked and attached 
hereto. ) 

Q. Were these election supplies, as testified to by you, sent to the various 
precincts throughout your division to be used at the election to be held on the 
7th day of November, 1916?— A. They were. 

Q. How were they sent to the election precincts? — A, The supplies were put 
up one for each election precinct throughout the division and forwarded to the 
United States commissioners of each district, who placed them in the hands of 
the judges of election. 

Q. Why were they sent to the United States commissioners of each recording 
precinct instead of direct to the election officials? — A. The commissioners di- 
vided their recording districts into precincts, and we were notified how many 
precincts there were in each recording district ; but we did not know who the 
judges of election were, and for that reason we sent all of the supplies to the 
commissioners, to be redistributed to the different election officials. 

Q. You say your election register and tally book — there were two sent to each 
precinct? — A. Yes; two. 

Q. Did you inclose your letters of instructions to judges in each of these 
election registers and tally books? — A. I did. 

Q. Do you know that the judges of election in the precincts of Choggiung 
and Nushagak, in the Bristol Bay recording district, third division. Territory of 
Alaska, received the election register and tally book which had inclosed in it 
the instructions to judges of election, a copy of which is marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit No. 1," and made a part of this deposition? — A. I do. 

Q. How do you know? — A. Because they went out with the supplies. I re- 
ceived the election register and tally book back in this office again after the 
■election. 

Q. Have you the election register and tally book from the voting precinct 
of Sour Dough in the Copper Center recording precinct, third division, Terri- 



240 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

tory of Alaska, tliat was returned to you by the officials of election pursuant 
to the provisions of law? — A. I have. 

Q. Will you read the names of the voters at that precinct as shown upon the 
register and tally book? — A. Mrs. N. Yaeger, Wihd Miller, F. A. Lamson, 
George L. Markham, and Louis Klopsch. 

Q. What was the total vote case in the said precinct of Sour Dough for Dele- 
gate to Congress in the election held there on the 7th day of November, 1916, 
as shown by the election register and tally book now on file in your office? — 
A. Five. 

Q. For whom were these five votes cast for Delegate to Congress? — A. For 
James Wickersham. 

Q. Did they all subscribe to the registration book provided by chapter 25 of 
the Session Laws of Alaska for the year 1915? — A. They did. 

Q. What requirements did they subscribe to in order to entitle them to 
vote at said election ? — A. " United States of America, Territory of Alaska, 
Third Division, ss : The undersigned hereby states that he or she is a citizen 
of the United States of the age of 21 years or more ; has lived in the Territory 
of Alaska one year and in the third division 30 days immediately proceeding 
the November 7, 1916, election." 

Q. Do you know whether Louis Klopsch, who voted for James Wickersham 
for Delegate to Congress at the Sour Dough precinct at the election held there 
on the 7th day of November, 1916, was a resident of the third division of the 
Territory of Alaska for 30 days next proceeding the date at which he voted? — 
A. He was not. 

Q. How do you know? — A. Because I have in my possession the affidavit 
of one Frank B. Hall, a deputy marshal for the fourth division of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, in which he states that Louis Klopsch was a resident of the 
fourth division of the Tei-ritory of Alaska up to, on, or about the 1st day of 
November, 1916. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I ask you to present that affidavit to the notary public 
before whom this deposition is taken and have same marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit No. 3 " and attached to and be made a part of this deposition. (" Ex- 
hibit No. 3" marked and attached hereto.) 

Q. Do you know where Louis Klopsch is at this time? — A. I do not. 

Q. What is your information as to how he happened to be at the Sour Dough 
precinct on election day? — A. I was informed he was coming' from Fairbanks 
on his way to the States. 

Q. And he has not returned from the States since he went out at that time? — 
A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. You have no knowledge as to where his present address is? — A. I have 
not. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book from the Cor- 
dova precinct in the third division of the Territory of Alaska, used in the 
election for Delegate to Congress on the 7th day of November, 1916, and ask 
you if one H. DeWeiss voted at that election? — A. He did; his name appears 
on the tally book. 

Q. Was he at that time a citizen of the United States? — A. He was not. 

Q. How do you know that he was not a citizen of the United States at the 
time he voted at that election? — A. He was naturalized on the 7th day of De- 
cember, 1916. 

Q. Do the records of your office show that he was naturalized in the district 
court for the Territory of Alaska, of which court you are clerk, on the 7th day 
of December, 1916? — ^A. Yes ; they do. 

Q. Referring again to the election register and the tally book of the Sour 
Dough precinct, I will ask you if the judges of election at that precinct took 
the oath of office required by law before they entered upon the duties of their 
office as such judges of election? — A. They did not. 

Q. The vote in the precinct of Sour Dough gave Wickersham five and Sulzer 
none for Delegate to Congress, did it not? — A. It did. 

Q. Going back to the Cordova precinct, where H. DeWeiss voted, what was 
the vote on Delegate to Congress at that precinct? — A. According to the returns 
Lena Morrow Lewis received 34, Charles A. Sulzer received 157, and James 
Wickersham received 201. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book returned to 
your office from the election judges of the election held on November 7, 1916, 
at Nizina, Alaska, and ask you if the certificate required by law to be filed as 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 241 

stating that the number of votes cast at said election was filled out in the regis- 
ter and tally book? — A. It was not. 

Q. What was the respective vote cast for Charles A. Sulzer and James Wick- 
ersham as Delegate to Congress in this precinct? — A. Sulzer reecived 2 votes 
and Wickersham received 7 votes. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book for the Seward 
precinct, third judicial division of the Territory of Alaska, returned to you by 
the judges of election at the election held on November 7, 1916, and ask you if 
the certificate i-equired by law stating the number of votes cast at this election 
was signed by the judges and clerks of election? — A. It was not. 

Q. What was the respective vote in this precinct for Charles A. Sulzer and 
James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? — A. Sulzer received 183 and 
Wickersham received 258. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book returned to 
your office by the election judges of the Seldovia precinct in the third division. 
Territory of Alaska, for the election held November 7, 1916, and ask you if the 
certificate required by law stating the number of votes cast at this election has 
been filled out? — A. It has not. 

Q. What was the respective vote in this precinct for Charles A. Sulzer and 
James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? — A. Sulzer 13 and Wicker- 
sham 55. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book from the 
Bonanza voting precinct, White River precinct, third division, Territory of 
Alaska, for the election held on November 7, 1916. and will ask you if the 
Judges of election in this precinct at said election took the oath of office as re- 
quired by law before entering upon their duties as such officials? — A. They did 
not. 

Q. What was the respective vote for Charles A. Sulzer and James Wicker- 
sham for Delegate to Congress in this precinct at said election? — A. Sulzer 
received 4 and Wickersham received 8. 

Q. I call your attention to the election register and tally book from the Hope 
voting precinct in the Kenia recording district, third judicial division, Terrtory 
of Alaska, for the election held November 7, 1916, and ask you if the judges of 
election in this precinct took the oath of office required by law before entering 
upon the discharge of their duties? — A. They did not. 

Q. What was the respective vote for (I'harles A. Sulzer and .Tames Wicker- 
sham for Delegate to Congress at the election held in this precinct on the date 
mentioned? — A. Sulzer received 14, and Wickersham received 21. 

Q. Have you in your possession an election register and tally book prepared 
by you for the election held on November 7, 1916, for the Uyak precinct, Kodiak 
recording district, third division. Territory of Alaska, which contains the in- 
structions to judges of election, the oath of office, and the various certificates, 
and also a copy of chapter 7 of the session laws of the Legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska for the year 1915, which chapter provides for an expression of 
the' people of the Territory of Alaska as to the sale of intoxicating liquor? — 
A, I have. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I ask you to present this register and tally book to the notary 
public before whom this deposition is being taken, have it marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit No. 4," and be made a part of this deposition. (" Exhibit No. 4 " 
marked and attached hereto.) 

Q. How did you come to have Contestee's Exhibit No. 4 at this time? — A. S. 
Irvine Stone, United States commissioner for the Kodiak recording precinct, 
third division. Territory of Alaska, informed me that he had established a pre- 
cinct at Uyak. and all supplies were forwarded to him to be sent to the judges of 
election at the Uyak precinct. He later returned the Uyak precinct supplies to 
me with the information that shortly after he informed me he was going to 
select a voting precinct at Uyak he learned that there was only a watchman at 
that place who was in charge of the cannery there; he therefore canceled the 
precinct, and no election was held there. 

Q. Now, with the exception of the official ballot, of which " Contestee's Exhibit 
No. 2 " is an exact copy, this " Exhibit No. 4 " is the same as the rest of the 
supplies you sent to the various other precincts in your judicial division? — 
A. It is. ' 

■ Q. Have you in your possession the official register kept by the election board 
of the voters at the election held at Seldovia on the 7th day of November. 
1916?— A. I have. 

13289—17 16 



242 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Does that register show that a number of those voters signed the register 
by maliing a cross? — A. It does. 

Q. Have you caused a pliotograph to be made of the register showing the sig- 
natures of the voters? — A. I have. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I now hand you a pliotographed list of names and will ask you 
if that is the photograph of the register of the voters of the Seldovia precinct 
at the election held on the Tth day of November, 1916? — A. It is. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We offer this photograph in evidence and ask that it be 
marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. .5" of Arthur Lang's deposition. (Exhibit No. 
5 received and marked accordingly.) 

Q. Have you in your posession the oflicial register kept by the election board 
of the voters at the election held at Afognak on the Tth day of November, 
1916?— A. I have. 

Q. Does that register show that a number of those voters signed the register 
by making a cross? — A. It does. 

Q. Have you caused a photograph to be made of the register showing the 
signatures of the voters? — A. I have. 

Q. I now hand you a photographed list of names and will ask you if that is the 
photograph of the register of the voters of the Afognak precinct at the election 
held on the Tth day of November, 1916? — A. It is. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We offer this photograph in evidence and ask that it be marked 
"Contestee's Exhibit No. 6" of Arthur Lang's deposition. (Exhibit No. 6 re- 
ceived and marked accordingly.) 

Akthue Lang. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of July, 191T. 

[seat..] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

iNIy conuuission expires May 19, 1921. 

certificate of notary. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Third Division, ss.: 

I, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly 
commissioned and sworn, residing at ^'aldez, Alaska, do hereby certify that 
pursuant to the notice hereinbefore set forth served on contestant James 
Wickersbam at Aulmrn, King County, State of Washington, on the 2Tth day of 
June, 191T, personally appeared liefore me at the hour of 2 o'clock p. m. on the 
2d day of July, 191T, at the law office of Donohoe & Dimond, in Valdez, Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, Arthur Lang, a witness on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer. coii- 
testee ; that said witness was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, and then and there gave his deposition as 
hereinbefore set fortli upon the oral interrogatories propounded to him by T. J. 
Donohoe, attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and in the taking of said 
deposition the several exhibits attached to the same were thereupon duly intro- 
duced in evidence. That contestant, James Wickersham, did not appear either in 
person or by attorney. That said deposition after being taken in shorthand was 
typev.-ritten by me. and after l)eing so typewritten it was read to said witness, 
corrected, and then by him subscribed as being true in all respects and as being 
the testimony given by him. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal 
this 3d day of July, 191T. 

[seal.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public in and for the Territory of Alaska. 

]My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

stipulation. 

Whereas Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, served upon James Wickersham, con- 
testant, on the 2Tth day of June, 191T, at Seattle, Wash., a notice of his inten- 
tion to take depositions at Kodiak. Alaska, in support of his answer to con- 
testant's petition on the Sth day of July, 191T ; and 

Whereas John Rustgard, attorney for James Wickersham, contestant, and 
T. J. Donohoe, attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, arrived at Kodiak on 
the 6th day of July, 191T, for the purpose of taking said depositions. 



WIGKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 243 

Now, therefore, for the purpose of facilitating the taking of said depositions 
it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the above- 
entitled contest, by and through their respective attorneys, that the depositions 
of witnesses on behalf of Cliarles A. Sulzer, contestee, may be taken at Kodiak 
on the 7th day of July, 1917, by giving the said John Rustgard, attorney for 
the said James Wickersham, contestant, one hour's notice of the time and place 
where said depositions will be taken. 

Dated at Kodiak, Alaska, this 7th day of July, 1917. 

John Rustgard, 
Attonieij for James Wickersham, Contestant. 

T. J. DONOHOE, 

Attorney for Cliarles A. Sulzer, Contestee. 

DEPOSITIONS OF ERN.ST STEICKLER, FATHER KASHEVAROFF, CECIL KING, AND MARTIN 

LAESEN. 

Be it remembered that pursuant to the notice hereunto annexed and the 
stipulation this day entered into between John Rustgard, the duly and regularly 
accredited attorney of James Wickersham, contestant, and T. J. Donohoe, the 
duly and regularly accredited attorney of Charles A. Sulzer, coutestee, at the 
hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the 7th day of July, 1917, at the office of 
the deputy United States marshal at the town of Kodiak, third judicial division. 
Territory of Alaska, before me, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in and for the 
Territory of Alaska, personally appeared Cecil King, Ernest Strickler, Father 
N. P. KashevarofC, and Martin Larsen, witnesses produced on behalf of Charles 
A. Sulzer, the above-named contestee in the above-entitled contest now pending 
before the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, Sixty- 
fifth Congress, first session. Eacli, of said witnesses were by me first duly 
sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and were 
then and there examined and interrogated by T. J. Donohoe, attorney for the 
said Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and by John Rustgard, attorney for James 
Wicl:ersham, contestant, and said witnesses testified as follows : 

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST STEICKLER. 

Direct examination bj' Mr. Donohoe • 

Q. State your name. — A. Ernest Strickler. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I was born in February, 1869. 

Q. Were you in Afognak, Alaska, on election day, November 7, 1916? — A. Yes. 

Q. You were watchman for Judge Wickersham in that election? — A. I was. 

Q. Were you in about the polls all day? 

(Objection of Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects for reason that Mr. Strick- 
ler's name has not been given as one of the witnesses to be examined in the 
contest at this time.) 

Statement by Mr. Donohoe. The contestee desires to state that owing to the 
great distance between Valdez and Kodiak and Afognak it was impossible for 
the coutestee's attorney to know the names of all the witnesses whose testi- 
mony he would desire to take at the time the notice of the taking of these depo- 
sitions was served upon James Wickersham in the State of Washington, but the 
notice did provide for several witnesses whose testimony was to be taken at 
Kodfak, and also stated such other witnesses wliose testimony might lie deemed 
important and wbose names were at this time unknown to contestee. It is there- 
fore under this clause that contestee at this time desires to take the deposition 
of Mr. Strickler. 

A. Yes ; I was there all day. 

Q. I will ask you if you saw a man vote by the name of Ivan Alhoon? — A. 
Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. Do you remember whether iMatfrey Agik voted? — A. Yes. sir; he did. 

Q. Did you see Wasele Apolon vote? — A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did you see Michael Boskofsky vote? — A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did you see Logan Changun vote? — A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did you see Ivan Derenoff vote? — A. Yes, sir; he voted, I think. 

Q. Did you see Wasele Eshnwalv vote? — A. I don't know, as I never .heard of 
Iiim before by that time. Oh, yes ; I do, too, remember him now. He voted. 

Q. Did you see Xenophant Gregory vote? — A. Yes ; I saw him vote. 

Q. Did you see Ivan Gregorioff vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 



244 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Did you see Peter Kewan vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 

Q. Did you see Nastacia Kilegmau vote? — A. Yes; she voted. 

Q. Did you see Tumofrey Naya vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 

Q. Did you see Paul Nelvrasoft" vote? — A. Yes ; he voted. 

Q. Did you see Alexander Nekrasoff vote? — A. I don't remember. He might 
have been there, but I don't remember. 

Q. Did you see Andrew Shunagan vote? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. Did you see Nicholi Shunagan vote? — A. I don't remember. Very likely 
he did. 

Q. Did you see John Taushwak vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 

Q. Did you see John Yakanak vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 

Q. Did you see Gregorie Yakanak vote? — A. Yes; he voted. 

Q. Did these peoiale whose names you have just testified to as voting at the 
election held at Afognak on the 7th day of November, 1916, reside in the Aleut 
village of Afognak? — A. Yes; some of them resided in the Aleut village and 
some of them resided in Creole Town. 

Q. Which ones of them reside in Creole Town? — A. Derenoff, Michael Bos- 
kofsky, Paul Nekrasoff. 

Q. The others reside in the Aleut town? — A. Yes, sir; they do. 

Q. You are well acquainted with those people in Afognak? — A. Yes; I am. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. Since the fall of 1904. 

Q. Have the Aleuts of Afognak a chief? — ^A. They elect a chief to attend to 
their local business. The Creoles also have a chief to keep order and to settle 
all disputes which arise among them. 

Q. Do you know how these Aleuts succeeded in having their ballots marked 
at the election held on November 7, 1916? — A. Yes, sir; the election board 
marked a good many of them. 

Q. Did you mark any? — A. None at all. 

Q. Which ones of the election board marked them? — A. Alex Simenoff marked 
some and E. Petellin also marked some. 

Q. Who urged these Aleuts to vote?— A. I don't know. 

Q. Who went after them? — A. I don't know. 

Q. You had no conversation with them in advance? — A. No. 

Q. Do you know of anyone who did talk with them in advance on the 
election? — A. I do not. 

Q. Did you see anybody mark any of the ballots of these Aleuts other than 
the members of the election board? 

(Objection of Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects to the examination of this 
character because there is no charge in the answer of contestee that any bal- 
lots were improperly or irregularly marked at the Afognak precinct or that 
any ballot was voted that was illegally marked.) 

A. I think John Taushwak marked some. 

Q. He lives in the Aleut village? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he bring up to the election polls a number of the Aleuts? — A. No. 

Q. Did he go into the booths and mark these ballots for a number that 
could not read or write? — A. Y^es ; three or four. 

Q. He was not a member of the election board ? — A. No. 

Q. Who was he working for on election day in the Delegate election? — A. I 
don't know. 

(Objection of Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects on the same ground as 
on which his former objection is based ; that is, there is no charge in ans,wer 
of contestee of any person other than the judges or the voters marked the 
ballot, nor is there any complaint made in answer of any character that any 
ballot was illegally marked or that any person was illegally admitted to the 
voting booth to mark the ballot or that any ballot was deposited in the ballot 
box which was illegally marked.) 

Q. What is the distance from Kodiak to Afognak? I mean by the ordinary 
course of travel? — A. I believe that the mail contract calls for 24 or 26 miles. 

Q. You travel by water, then? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have you resided in Alaska? — A. Since 1896. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. In Switzerland. 

Q. When did you come to America? — A. In 1891. 

Q. Are you a naturalized citizen?— A. I am. 

Q. Where did you take out your papers? — A. In Valdez. 

Q. You took your last papers out there? — A. Yes. 

Q. When did you take them out?— A. In 1909; October. 

Q. Who was the judge who presided at that time? — ^A. Judge Overfleld. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 245 

Q. Is it not a fact that you had a conversation with John Taushwak pre- 
vious to the election in which it was agreed between you and Taushwak that 
Taushwak was to bring these Aleuts up from the village to vote them on elec- 
tion day? — A. No. 

Q. You had no conversation with John Taushwak about the election? — A. No. 

Q. Or with any other person? — A. No; most of them talk either Russian or 
Aleut, and I didn't converse with them. 

Q. Who appointed you as Wickersham's watcher at that election? — A. Wicker- 
sham. 

Q. Are you acquainted with John J. Falstad? — A. I am. 

Q. You nor Falstad have ever had any conversation with John Tausliwak 
about voting the Aleuts at this election held November 7, 1916? — A. No, sir; 
not to my knowledge. 

Q. Falstad was working for Wickersham in the election, was he not? — A. I 
don't know. 

Q. Did he ever say anything to you? — A. No. 

Q. John Falstad is the man who was convicted of election fraud in the Afognak 
Delegate election in the year 1912, was he not? 

(Objection by Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects on the ground that the 
evidence asked for is not the best evidence, and said evidence is purely hear- 
say.) 

Statement by Mr. Donohoe. The purpose of this question is simply to identify 
the man who was convicted for election frauds in the year 1912 for Delegate. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you a witness at that trial? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The election board at Afognak in that year 1912, in the Delegate election, 
voted a great number of Aleuts at the Afognak precinct who were not present 
that day? 

(Objection by Mr. Rustgaed. Mr. Rustgard objects to this as immaterial and 
irrelevant and having no bearing on the issues involved in this case, and having 
no bearing upon any charge set up in the answer of contestee. ) 

A. I do't know. 

Q. You were a witness for Falstad at the trial in which he was convicted and 
heard the testimony? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you now say that you didn't know he was charged with voting a number 
of Aleuts who were not present at the election? — A. I only heard the testimony 
I gave myself. I wasn't allowed in the court room only when I was called as a 
witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 

Q. How far is it between what you call the Aleut village and Creole village? — 
A. It is really a continuation of the two places. It is a part of the waterfront. 
It must be a little better than a mile and a half from one end of the town to the 
other. 

Q. And the two towns then really run into one? — A. Yes. 

Q. Most of the Aleuts live toward the one end of the town and the most of the 
Creoles live toward the other end? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you have a school district organized at Afognak? — A. Yes. 

Q. You have what is known as a territorial school district? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you have a school election each year? — A. Yes. 

Q. In those school elections do all the people who live there, both Creoles and 
Aleuts, take part and vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects that this question is im- 
material and irrelevant, for the reason that the qualifications for voters in the 
school elections are not the same qualifications for voters for Delegate to Con- 
gress for this reason : Only American citizens are entitled to vote at an election 
for Delegate to Congress, while in a school election this qualification is not re- 
quired. ) 

Q. Did you ever hear the right of any of these people, which you have referred, 
to vote questions? — A. No, sir; except some since this contest was started. 

Q. Prior to the institution of this contest was the right of the Creoles and 
Aleuts alike to vote ever questioned? — A. No ; not to my knowledge. 

Q. Have you been present at Afognak at any Delegate elections before? — A. 
Yes ; at two or three. 

Q. In those Delegate elections the Aleuts and Creoles alike voted? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects that the cross-examination 
is irrelevant and incompetent, unless the testimony is confined to the election 
held on the 7th day of November, 1916.) 



246 WICKERSHAM VS. STJLZER. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were the judges of election at Afognak on November 7, 1916? — 
A. Emellian Petellin, Alex Simenoff. and Alfred Nelson. 

Q. All three of these judges were Creoles? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you notice that Alex Simenoff distributed Sulzer ballots in the elec- 
tion booth? — A. He distributed them before the election all over town. 

Q. Did he talk for Sulzer around town? — A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you know whom he represented or for whom he voted for Delegate 
at the election? — A. I do not. Probably Sulzer. He distributed Sulzer ballots, 
and he, as judge of election, helped mark the ballots for those who could not 
mark them. 

Q. He marked some? — A. Yes; he marked some. 

Q. Was he present when ballots were marked? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did you personally see the ballots marked? — A. I did not. 

Q. You mean you saw the judges mark them, but don't know how they 
marked them? — A. No. 

Q. Was anyone allowed to see them marked except the party who voted 
and the judges of election? — A. No. They were not supposed to be. 

Q. Did you see anybody excluded from the election polls ou that day? — 
A. Yes, sir ; two to my knowledge. 

Q. Who were these men? — A. Two white men. 

Q. For what reason? — A. They were not citizens, only had intention papers. 

Q. Was any question asked these two people who were excluded as to how 
they intended to vote? — A. No. 

Q. Did they say who they intended to vote for? — A. No. 

Q. Was there any discussion on that subject? — A. Not that I heard of. 

Q. Did you ever hear that there Avas any discussion at all on the subject?— 
A. None whatever. 

Q. How. large is the population of Afognak? — A. Altogether, children and 
all, somewheres around 400. I have never seen the census. 

Q. Is it as large a town as Kodiak? — A. No; it don't have quite as many 
children. 

Q. How do the people live there? — A. Fishing, hunting, and some trapping; 
whatever they can do to make a dollar. 

Q. The Creoles, Whites, and Aleuts are now living in the same manner? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. They all work for a living? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do they all associate with one another in the town? — A. Oh, pretty well. 

Q. When you have a dance do they mix? — A. Yes. 

Q. They draw no color line? — A. is^o. 

Q. These that you refer to as Aleut speak two languages, Russian and 
Aleut? — A. Yes. Some of the younger ones speak English. The Creoles speak 
Russian, Aleut, and English. Some of the older Creoles, however, do not 
speak any English, only a few words. 

Q. And they all dress alike? — A. Yes. 

Q. They all live alike?— A. Yes. 

Q. They all live in the same style and manner as white people? — A. Yes; 
similar. 

Q. They all live in frame houses? — A. Mostly all in log houses. 

Q. They all cook on stoves? — A. Yes. 

Q. Then they have houses the same as white people? — A. Yes. 

Q. Dress the sa'me as white people? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where do they get their clothes? — A. Buy them at the stores, the same 
as anybody else. They buy the goods with money which they earn themselves 
just the same as anybody else. 

Q. Then they buy the goods with money? — A. They certainly do. They don't 
get their money by charity. 

Q. You said something about chiefs, both Creoles and Aleuts. Do they elect 
their chiefs annually? — A. They elect them every year — sometimes every two or 
three years. 

Q. Do you have any town government in Afognak the same as in the States? — 
A. No ; it is npt an incorporated town. 

Q. What is the business of the chief? — A. The same as the mayor of the town 
or town council in other places. They elect him to keep order. 

Q. You have no deputy marshal there? — A. No. 

Q. Have you a court there? — A. No. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 247 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. Who is the chief of the Aleuts? — A. Gregori Yal^anak. 

Q. What was he elected? — A. I don't remember; it was some few years back. 

Q. Who is chief of the Creoles? — A. I do not know who is chief tliere now. 

Q. Do you know whether the Creoles have a chief now? — A. I do not know 
whether there is a chief now. I know there was a Creole chief before I left. 
I have never inquired. 

Q. There is a marked distinction maintained at Afognak between the Aleuts 
and Creoles and each have their own chief? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. The members of the Aleut organization obey the commands of their 
chief? — A. I suppose so. 

Q. How many Aleuts do yovT, roughly, say there is on Afognak Island and in 
the Aleut villages of men and women who are 21 years of age and over? — A. I 
don't know. 

Q. They all voted at the November, 1916. Delegate election? — A. I guess that 
about all of them voted. Most of them are married. 

Q. Afognak Island and the waters surrounding it are in a Government reserve 
for natives, is it not? — A. Yes, sir; for both Creoles and Aleuts. A white man 
is not permitted to fish there unless he is married to a native. 

Q. When was that reservation created? — A. I do not know; it was before my 
time ; I mean liefore I came to Alaska. 

Q. You know now that the island of Afognak and the waters surrounding it is 
made a reservation for the Alaskan natives for fishing? 

(Objection by ^Ir. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects to this because it is only 
hearsay evidence of the records of the establishment of a reservation : the 
objection and the purpose of the same may be proven by the public records.) 

A. It is only since 1912 that the island has been open for natives for fishing 
for commercial purposes. 

Q. Since 1912, then, the natives and Aleuts have been permitted to fish in 
these waters for commercial purposes, then? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But a white man can not fish there unless he is married to a native? — 
A. No ; he can not. 

Q. Are white men permitted to live on the island unless married? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How many white men did you say were living in Afognak on the 7th day 
of November. 1916. — A. About a dozen. 

Q. Out of a population of about 400 people living on Afognak Island and in 
the town of Afognak on the date of the last election there were about a dozen 
of them white people then ? — A. Yes ; between a dozen and 15. 

Ernest- Steicklee. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAJL.] Feank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1917. 

TESTIMONY OF FATHER N. P. KASHEVAROF. 

Direct examination by T. .7. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. N. P. Kashevarof. 

Q. What is your age? — A. I am 56 years old. 

Q. You reside at Kodiak? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. HoAV long have you resided at Kodiak? — A. I was born here. 

Q. You are the parish priest of the Russian or Greek Catholic Church for the 
Kodiak parish? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have you been priest? — A. Since 1905. 

Q. Was Afognak Island and the town of Afognak formerly in your parish? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was it created into a separate parish? — A. In 1896. 

Q. Is it not a fact that nearly all of the natives, Aleuts and Creoles, in the 
vicinity of Kodiak, and especially in the Afognak precinct, are members of your 
church? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has your church kept a record of the baptisms and christenings of the 
members of your church for some time back? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is claimed that there were certain parties who voted at the election held 
on the 7th day of November, 1916, at which a Delegate to Congress was voted 



248 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

for, at Afognak especially, who were Aleuts or Alaska natives. I will ask you 
to turn to your church record and state the nationality of the names I mention 
to you; I will also ask you, Father Kashevarof, what name do you call the 
book by from which you are about to read? — A. It is a church record, giving 
age and sex of the congregation ; in fact, it is a book of statistics, a record of 
families. The book shows either they are Aleut or Creoles or Russian. 

Q. What nationality is Ivan Algoon? — A. He is an Aleut. 

Q. What nationality is Mafrey Agick? — A. He is an Aleut. 

Q. Where does he reside? — A. At Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Wasele Apolon? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Simeon Berestoff ? — A. He is a Creole and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Michael Boskofsky? — A. He is an Aleut; he has been 
adopted and raised by Creoles. 

Q. Where does he reside? — A. At Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Logan Chanin? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Ivan Derenoff? — A. He appears in the book as a 
Creole. I know him to be an Aleut. He resides at Afognak. 

Q. What nationality in Wasele Eshnwak? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Peter Kewan? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Nastacia Kilegman? — A. She is an Aleut and resides 
at Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Tumofey Naya? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Andrew .Shangin? — A. He is a Creole and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is John Taushwak? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is John Yakanak? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. What nationality is Gregori Yakanak? — A. He is an Aleut and resides at 
Afognak. 

Q. Do you know whether the Aleuts residing in the Aleut village at Afognak 
have a chief? — A. They do. 

Q. What is the name of their chief? — A. Gregori Yakanak. 

Q. Do they live there in tribal relations — that is, does the chief have control 
of them? — A. The chief acts as their representative in any needs that they may 
have for him, especially when they are in need or destitute. When the fur 
laws have been passed, they look to him to advise them when they can hunt and 
when the season is opened and when it is closed. 

Q. Now, do all the members of the tribe of Aleuts obey their cliief? — 
A. Yes. sir. 

Q. That has been the ease for many years gone by, has it not? — A. It has. 

Q. TJiey are living now in the same tribal relations as they did 25 years 
ago? — A. Yes; only a good deal better now. 

Q. So far as their obeying the chief it is the same now as then and always 
has been? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You know that most of these parties whose names have 1)een testified to 
by you as ))eing Aleuts voted at the election held last November 7, 1916? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Aside from your church records you know that they are Aleuts? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. By Aleuts you mean tlie aboriginal race in Alaska and their descendants, 
do you not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been connected with the church? — A. I have been as- 
sistant priest here since 1875, and the Afognak church was in my parish. 

Q. What do you mean by Creoles? — A. The mixed blood, part Russian or 
part white. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 
Q. You are of Russian stock yourself? — A. No; I have some native blood in 
me. My father was a Creole. My grandfather and great grandfather were 
pure Russians, but my grandmother was of mixed blood. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE, 249 

Q. You speak the Russian language, too; cTo you not? — A. I do. 

Q. Also the Aleut language? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been a priest of the Greek-Russian Church — A. I have 
'been assistant priest since 1875 and v/as a priest from December, 1895. 

Q. The Russian Church here in Kodlak is the oldest church in Alaska, is it 
not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How far back do the church records of your parish run? — A. Back to 1825. 

Q. This is the oldest Russian settlement in Alaska, is it not? — A. Yes, sir; 
It is. 

Q. You know, as a matter of history, that all the natives on and about Ko- 
dlak and Afognak Islands were Christianized a century or more ago? — A. Yes. 
sir. 

Q. Since that time they have been baptized into the Russian Church? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Now. with these Aleuts and Creoles to which you have just referred, have 
not they, their parents, and grandparents been members of the Russian Greek- 
Catholic Church? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They or their ancestors were members of the Russian Church at the time 
Alaska was ceded to the United States? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. These services which they conduct in the church, are they conducted in 
the Russian language? — A. They are conducted in what we call the Slavonian 
Church language. 

Q. Is that the language that is spoken by the Russians here also? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the official language of Russia? — A. No; this is what is called the 
Slavonian language, it is not the official Russian language. 

Q. All of these Aleuts who attend your church speak and understand Rus- 
sian? — A. Few of them.* 

Q. Do the Creoles understand and speak the Russian language? — A. They do. 

Q. You referred to the Chief Gregori Yakanak, is he a Creole? — A. No; he is 
a pure Aleut. 

Q. Do you know who his father and mother were? — A. Yes, sir; but I can't 
remember their names. 

Q. How old a man is he? — A. He was 27 years old in 1890. 

Q. Does he speak Russian? — A. Yes, sir ; but not very much. 

Q. Does he attend your services? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When Avas he elected chief? — A. I can't tell, because it is not in my parish. 

Q. They change chiefs sometimes then? — A. Yes; when they don't like one 
chief they elect a new one. 

Q. What is the business of the chief? — A. The business of the chief is to 
keep them posted on the laws of the country, to tell them when the game season 
is open and closed, to find out when they are allowed to hunt, and help them 
when needed. 

Q. He has no authority over them otherwise? — A. No. 

Q. He is not a king over them? — A. No. 

Q. He is like a lawyer for them? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do the Creoles sometimes elect somebody to act as lawyers for them? — A. 
They do in Afognak. 

Q. Who is acting as their lawyer in Afognak? — A. Last year it was a man 
named Nicoli Sheratin. 

Q. Do you know who is acting' as the lawyer for the Creoles at Afognak 
now? — A. No ; I do not. 

Q, Do they pay their chief or lawyer anything? — A. No. 

Q. He does the work for the honor there is in it then? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Father Kashevaroff did you ever hear the rights of these people as Ameri- 
can citizens questioned? — A. Of the Creoles, yes, sir. 

Q. Didn't you always understand that they had the same rights as Ameri- 
can citizens? You instructed them that they had the right to vote, Aleuts and 
Creoles alike. — A. I knew they had the right to vote at the school elections, 
and advised them to vote. 

Q. Did you not also advise them to vote at the Delegate election? — A. No. 
I didn't advise the Aleuts to vote at the Delegate election. 

Q. Do you mean to say that you told the Aleuts not to vote at the Delegate 
election? — A. I didn't tell them a thing about it. 

Q. You did not tell the Aleuts either to vote or not to vote?— A. There wasn't 
any Aleiits around here and I wasn't in Afognak on election day. 

Q. How long since you were in Afognak? — A. I was priest there for four and 
one-half years. 



250 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

Q. And you have never been there since? — A. I was there last year during the 
spring months, because there was no priest there. 

Q. When was this?— A. In- March. 1916. 

Q. Is tliat tlie last time you were in Afognak? — A. I was there in July, 1916. 

Q. You were there after July, 1916?— A. No. 

Q. Have you been in Afognak since the month of July. 1916? — A. No. 

Q. Have you been to Ouzinki lately? — A. In October, 1916. 

Q. At the time you were in Ouzinki in October, 1916, did you talk politics 
with your parishoners? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. ]\Ir. Donohoe objects on the ground that it is 
not proper cross-examination and on the further ground that there is no con- 
test regarding the vote at Ouzinki and the contestant is liy this method seeking 
to establish evidence of his case at a date after the expiration of the time for 
his taking testimony.) 

A. I was there on marriage business. I didn't call there to talk politics. 

Q. Did you at any time advise the Aleuts and Creoles at Ouzinki to vote for 
Sulzer? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on same ground as above 
stated.) 

A. I told them I didn't know anything about Sulzer nor about Wickersham. 

Q. Did you tell them who to vote for? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on same ground as above 
stated. ) 

A. No. 

Q. Ho\\' many of the population of Oyzinik are Creoles and how many of them 
are Aleuts? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects f)n the same grounds as 
above stated.) * 

A. There are no Aleuts there. All Creoles except two or three white men. 

Q. You yourself took a great deal of interest iii the last Delegate election, did 
you not? 

((Objection by ^Nlr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on the same grounds as 
above stated;) 

A. Nothing special. 

Q. You preached to your congregation at the church once, did you not, in 
favor of Sulzer? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on the same grounds as 
above stated.) 

A. I did. 

Q. You posted Sulzer's picture in the church? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on the same grounds as 
above stated.) 

A. No ; it was posted in the hallway of the church. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. Counsel for Mr. Wickersham asked you whether Mr. Gregory, the Aleu- 
tian chief at Afognak, spoke Russian, and you said a little. Can he read and 
write in the English language? — A. No; unless lately he may have picked it up 
some. 

Q. It is a fact, is it not, that there are very few of the Aleuts at Afognak who 
can either read or write the English language? — A. The younger generation can, 
but the older, as a rule, can not. 

Q. When you were over there four years ago were there many of the grown 
Aleuts over the age of 21 years who could read or write? — A. Very few. 

Q. It is also a fact that many of the Creoles residing at Afognak can not 
read or write the English language? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Then only a few of them can read or write the English language? — A. Only 
a very few of them. 

Rev. N. P. Kashevaboff. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public m and for the Territory of Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 251 

TESTIMONY OF CECIL KING. 

Direct examiuation by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. Cecil R. King. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Kodiak. 

Q. How long have you resided here? — A. I have resided here since a boy. 
I have been away for some different lengths of time. 

Q. What is your age? — A. I am 38 years old. 

Q. Where was you born?^ — A. Unalaska, Alaska. 

Q. Do you hold some official position in the Russian Greek Catliolic Cliurch 
at Kodiak? — A. I am reader in the church. 

Q. What is that? — A. I am assistant to the priest. 

Q. Are j^oii acquainted at Afognak? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever live in Afognak? — A. Twice. 

Q. When was your residence there last? — A. From the fall of 1915 until 
June, 1916. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the people who live in the town of Afognak? — 
A. I am. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the Aleuts as well as Creoles? — A. I know all of 
them. 

Q. "Where do the Aleuts in Afognak live? — A. There is a separate village a 
little ways separate from the Creoles. 

Q. The inhabitants of the Aleut tov\-n are distinct and separate from the re- 
maining portions of Afognak. are they not? — A. Yes, sir; they are. 

Q. Have the Aleuts a chief? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you speak of Aleuts you mean the aboriginal race of Alaska, do you 
not? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Who is the chief of the Aleuts residing at Afognak? — A. Gregoru Yakanak 
was when I was there. 

Q. Do you knoA^' whether he speaks the English language? — A. I have never 
heard him. 

Q. What language does he speak? — A. Aleut mostly. 

Q. Y'"ou speak the Aleut language? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You speak the Russian and English language also? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is the language generally spoken in the Aleut town of Afognak? — 
A. Aleut. 

Q. There is no Russian or English language spoken there? — A. No. The 
Aleut seems to be the only language spoken there. 

Q. Even the Creoles speak the Aleut language? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. There is no iieAvspaper published at Afognak? — A. No. 

Q. Do the inhabitants of the town of Afognak get any papers or letters? — 
A. Yes ; some of them do ? 

Q. What does the mail consist of generally? — A. Fur advertisements, also 
some catalogues. They have to get the assistance of some one to explain them 
to them. 

Q. How about the Creoles at Afognak; do they speak the English language? — 
A. Some do and some don't. 

Q: What is the percentage of Creoles at Afogiiak that read the English lan- 
guage and understand it? — A. Very few of the older folks can read or write 
the English language. 

Q. When you speak of the older folks do you mean those from 21 years of 
age on up. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The children going to school are gradually getting acquainted with the 
English language, are they not? — A. I'es ; they are. The school children, how- 
ever, as a rule, speak nothing but the Aleut after they get off the school 
grounds. 

Q. Do you know Ivan Alhoon? — A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him? — A. I was at the Afognak store in 1910, 
where I was in the store, and while there I met him. 

Q. What is he?— A. Aleut. 

Q. He resides in the Aleut village? — A. He does. 

Q. Do you know Matfrey Agick? — A. He is an Aleut, and resides in the Aleut 
village. 

Q. Do you know Wasele Apolon? — A. He is an Aleut and resides in the Aleut 
village. His father is chief at Uganik. 



252 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Where is Ugauik? — A. It is about 60 miles west from Afognal^, on Kodiak 
Island. 

Q. Do you know Michael Boskofsky? — A. I do not know much about him, ex- 
cept that he is living with a Creole family. 

Q. Do you know Logan Chanin? — A. He is an Aleut and lives iu the Aleut 
Tillage. 

Q. Do you know Ivan Derenoff? — A. He is supposed to be a Creole, and I 
have heard many say that he is an Aleut ; in fact, the chief of Uganik claims to 
be his brother. 

Q. Do you know Wasele Eshnwak? — A. He is an Aleut and resides in Aleut 
village. 

Q. Do you know Peter Kewau? — A. He is an Aleut and resides iu Aleut 
village. 

Q. Do you know Nastacia Kilegman? — A. She is an Aleut. She comes from 
Douglas village, on the mainland ; she resides in the village. 

Q. How long has she lived in the village? — A. Since Katmai eruption; she 
belonged to the tribe that the Government removed from mainland after 
Katmai eruption. 

Q. Do you know Tumofry Naya ? — A. Yes ; he is from Katmai. He is an 
Aleut. He has lived in Afognak since 1910. 

Q. Do you know Andrew Shungan? — A. Yes; he is an Aleut. 

Q. Do you know John Taushwak? — A. Yes; he is an Aleut. 

Q. Do you know John Yakanak? — A. Yes ; he is an Aleut. 

Q. Do you know Wasele Eshnwak? — A. Yes; he is an Aleut. 

Q. Now, these natives you have stated as Aleuts, can they read or write the 
English language? — A. John Taushwak can. 

A. What about the rest of them? — A. John Y'akanak and Peter Kewan speak 
some good English, but the rest of them do not. 

Q. Did you say these natives whom you have just mentioned are pure- 
blooded Aleuts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. By Aleuts you mean the aboriginal race of Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have these Aleuts in Afognak a chief? — A. They had the last time I was 
there. 

Q. Are they living in tribal relations ; that is, does the chief superintend 
them and generally advise them? — A. Yes, sir; when it comes to digging a 
grave for the burying of one of their own dead and looking atfer their moral 
duties. 

Q. Do the members of the tribe obey the orders of their chief? — A. Yes; as 
a rule they do. They, however, don't obey this man Gregori very much. 

Q. You speak of Aleut village ; name the villages where the Aleuts resides in 
this vicinity. — A. Part of Afognak, known as Aleut Village ; Ugauik, Eagle 
Harbor, Old Harbor, and Douglas. 

Q. In these villages do they have a chief who occupies the same position as 
the chief at Afognak? — A. They show more respect in these other places to their 
chief, and he has an assistant, which they have not at Afognak. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 

Q. What is your occupation at the present time? — A. Assistant to Father 
Kashevaroff. 

Q. Do you do any work outside of this church work? — A. I do. 

Q. What kind of work? — A. Just common labor. I am now working for the 
saltery. 

Q. Y^'ou are in the employ of Erskiue «& Co. at the present time? — A. I am 
not on steady ; just working by the hour and get pay for whatever time I 
put in. 

Q. How much of the time during the past year have you been m their 
employ? — A. Only since last March. 

Q. Where was you employed last summer? — A. By the Government. 

Q. In what capacity? — A. In the Bureau of Fisheries. 

Q. Where?— A. At Uganik. 

Q. Where is that? — A. It is on Kodiak Island about 60 miles from Afognak. 

Q. What time did you close your services with the Government? — A. Last 
September. 

Q. After you came back to Kodiak in the fall of 1916 did you work for wages 
for anybody? — A. No; not for anyone steady. 

Q. Who all did you work for? — A. I worked some for Erskine & Co. and also 
made a trip with Father Kashevaroff to Eagle Harbor. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 253 

Q. What time did you take the trip to Eagle Harbor? — A. In October, 1916. 

Q. At that time did you go to Afognalj?— A. No. 

Q. Did you go to Ouzinki with Father Kashevaroff? — A. After having been to 
Eagle Harbor ; yes. 

Q. How much time did you spend at Ouzinki? — A. We were weather bound 
there for our days. 

Q. And on that trip you didn't go to Afognak? — A. No. 

Q. You were a member of the election board at Kodiak last November, were 
you not? — A. I was one of the judges. 

Q. Who were the other judges? — A. Dr. Silverman and Fred Sargenc. 

Q. Who appointed you judge of election? — A. Dr. Stone, the United States 
coiumissioner. 

Q. Where is Fred Sargent now? — A. I don't know. 

Q. What is his business? — A. Laborer. 

Q. Is he pure white? — A. No; his father- is American-born and his mother is 
Russian. 

Q. Could Sargent speak Aleut? — A. He spoke Aleut, Russian, and English, the 
same as I can. 

Q. What about Silverman — could he speak all those languages? — A. No; not 
that I know of. 

Q. What nationality was he? — A. He is a Jew. 

Q. Have you ever acted as judge of election before? — A. Yes; on the school 
election. 

Q. You were personally working for Sulzer before the election? — A. I was 
not. 

Q. What I mean is, you were one of Sulzer's partisans? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There were several voting at this place who could not speak English? — 
A. There were some. 

Q. How many did you see who voted at the precinct here who cauld not speak 
English? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objected to that question on ac- 
count of it not being proper cross-examination, there having been nothing- 
brought out in this witness's direct testimony in any manner relating to the 
election held at Kodiak on the 7th day of November, 1917, and on the further 
ground that counsel for James Wickersham is endeavoring by cross-examina- 
tion to establish the election of WJckersham's contest at a time subsequent to- 
the expiration of the time when Wickersham should take such testimony.) 

A. Four or five. 

Q. I find that as a rule at every election, either school or Delegate, here or 
in the neighboring precinct, both Creoles and Aleuts voted. — A. There are no 
Aleuts here. Further I would like to say that most of those who couldn't 
speak or write English voted for Wickersham, for they brought in Wickersham 
tickets from which they marked their ballots. 

Q. You say there has never been any objection to the Aleuts voting hereto- 
fore? — A. There was one year before this. 

Q. You mean in the other precincts. — A. I heard that they were barred. 

Q. W^hen did you first hear that they were barred? — A. Some time ago; I 
think it was when Mr. Orr ran against Wickersham in 1910. 

Q. Don't you know that Aleuts were in the habit of voting at the voting pre- 
cincts on Kodiak Island? — A. There are no voting precincts where Aleuts 
reside on Kodiak Island. 

Q. Your understanding of the law was that if a person had a little white 
blood in him he had a right to vote, but if he was a pure Aleut he had no 
right to vote. — A. Yes, sir ; I find lately where they had the least strain of 
Aleut blood in him he had no right to vote since 1913, especially on the liquor 
question. As a matter of fact, on the liquor question I can't vote ; they won't 
allow me. 

Q. How long did you live at Afognak the last time you were there? — A. The 
last time from September, 1915, until June. 1916. 

• Q. During that period was there any saloon conducted at Afognak? — A. No 
saloon. That is a Government reservation. 

Q. Then these Aleuts at Afognak live like the rest of the population? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They live in the same kind of houses? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They dress the same way? — A. Yes. 



254 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. They have people who can write for them? — A. Yes; thej^ can't write 
anything themselves, outside of one or two like John Taushwak. 

Q. How do they happen to get these fur catalogues? — A. Fellows like John 
Taushwak send the fur houses their names. 

Q. Do the fur people send them any catalogues in Aleut language? — A. I 
don't think so, although I never saw what the letters and catalogues had in 
them. The only translation of Aleut I ever saw was in Russian. 

Q. Do many of these Aleuts have in their homes Sears-Roebuck catalogues? — 
A. Yes, sir ; also Montgomery Ward catalogues. 

Q. They are in the habit of sending for whatever they want?-^ — A. Y6s ; when- 
ever they can. Most of them are so hard up that they can't afford to send 
for anything. 

Q. They are badly in debt to the storekeepers at Afognak, are they not? — 
A. Yes ; mostly to Petelling. They owe the other some. 

Q. They live in families? — A. Yes; eacii family has their own home. 

Q. What are the special duties of the chief? — A. He keeps order and attends 
to their duties whenever he can be of any help to them. When anyone is sick 
he helps them as best he can ; if there is any work to be done he musters 
out the people to do it, and generally the road work consists in keeping the 
ground clear around the church. 

Q. Does he also help them in their business relations? — A. Sometimes he 
does. 

Q. It is his business to keep them posted on the laws of the country, is it 
not? — A. Yes, sir; if he knows anything about them. The present chief does 
not know much more unless somebody tells him. 

Q. How often do they elect a chief? — A. I don't know. I have never lived in 
a village, outside of Afognak, where they had a chief. 

Q. How long do some of the chiefs stay in power? — A. Some of them a long 
time. The chief at Eagle Harbor h;is been chief for over 15 yenrs. 

Q. Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that when they get tired of a chief 
they elect a new one. — A. No ; they must have some reason. 

Q. Then, when they dislike him, they tire him out and get a new one? — A. 
Yes ; that is it. 

Q. You do not mean to say that the chief makes any laws for them? — A. No, 
no ; laws are laid down by him, they have a meeting for whatever laws he 
passes on. As far as the law goes, they respect the laws of the country as 
much as they understand them. 

Q. They don't pretend to have a government of their own? — A. No. 

Q. You made some remark about Aleuts and Creoles being separate at 
Afnogak. To what extent are they separate? — A. They live in two separate 
parts of the village. 

Q. Is there any line between them? — A. No; they speak of one as the Aleut 
end and the other as the Creole end. 

Q. The two villages are really joined together? — A. Yes; there is about 
1,000 yards of the creek that separates them. 

Q. There are no Creoles or whites living near the Aleuts? — A. Yes; right 
among them. ilr. John Falstead lives in the center of the Aleut village. He 
is a white man, a Norwegian. There are also some other Creoles living along 
among the Aleuts. 

Q. Very many?— A. There are four families. 

Q. Are' there any pure Aleuts living among the Creoles? — A. Not that I 
know of. 

Q. Which of the two are the most numerous? — A. The Creoles. 

Q. Are they much more numerous than the Aleuts? — A. About 3 Creoles 
to 1 AlejLit. 

Q. Did Father Kasbevaroff preach in favor of Charles A. Sulzer more than 
om-e in his churcli last fnll? — A. Once; he didn't solicit anything. He told the 
people to use their own judgment as to whom to vote for. 

Q. Didn't he refer to Sulzer as the new man? — A. No; everybody referred 
to liim as the new man. and the people generally referred to him that way,_ 
and when speaking of Wickersham they would say, the old fellow. 

Q. Didn't Father Kashevaroff tell them to vote for Sulzer? — A. No; I don't 
think so. 

Q. He posted Sulzer's jucture in the entrance to the church? — A. It was 
posted there, but don't know who posted it. I didn't see it myself, because 
some Wickersham booster toi-e it off. 



WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 255 

Q. How large a percentage of the Creoles over the age of 21 years speak 
English at Afnognak? — A. Of the older ones I don't know. Most of the 
younger ones speak it. 

Q. The younger Creoles, as a rule, can speak the three languages? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. The Aleuts, as a rule, speak Aleut and Russian ? — A. Not always ; some 
of them don't even understand that. 

Q. Tou mean that some of the Aleuts don't understand Russian? — A. Yes. 

Q. How many of the Aleuts at Afognak can not understand Russian? — A. I 
never talked to them in anything except Aleut. The only time I ever had a 
chance to speak to them was when I was twice in the store, and only talked 
then in Aleut to them. 

Q. The church services are all conducted in Russian? — A. In the Latin. 

Q. Isn't it the same language as spoken by the Russians? — A. There is a 
little difference. 

Q. One who can understand the church services can also understand the 
Russian that is spoken here? — A. He can some; there is a difference in the 
print. 

Q. There is a difference in the characters? — A. Yes; it is called the 
Slavonian. 

- Q. These Aleuts are good Christians? — A. The best tliat can be had. They 
attend church whenever they can. 

Q. They are devoted to their religion? — A. They are; chey tolerate no 
reflections thrown on their religious beliefs. Outwardly tliey may never resent 
it, but still they would feel much offended where they actually express them- 
selves at being offended. 

Q. In other words, they are what you say, a race with a profound religious 
sentiment? — A. Yes. 

Q. It is a tradition of the race that their forefathers have belonged to the 
Russian Church since they were first Christians? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects to any further examina- 
tion on this line on the ground that it is not cross-examination and is encumber- 
ing the record with purely immaterial and minute matter, and as all this matter 
will have to be printed in order to be presented to Congress this line of ques- 
tion should be carried no further, as it will have no bearing on the issues which 
are being prepared for Congress.) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You refer to Afognak socially. You do not draw the line between 
the Aleut and the other people? — A. We don't, but the outsiders sometimes do. 
They even draw it with us as well as the Aleuts. 

Q. You mean that the outsiders draw social lines around the Creoles, or even 
Russians and not only against the Aleuts? — A. There are no Russians here, but 
there is some people that will do that even to the Creoles. 

Q. Locally no such lines are recognized? — A. No, sir. 

Q. A family that has made its home here treats everybody alike? — A. They do. 

Q. And when you have a dance in this town all may go and dance together? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects to that question as incom- 
petent and irrelevant, it not being confined to the Afognak matter, that is now 
under consideration. ) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is true of Afognak as v.-ell as any place else? — A. Yes. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. Counsel for Contestant Wickersham asked you a question, if you had not 
been a partisan of Sulzer's during the campaign last fall, and also risked if you 
were a member of the election board, which you answered yes. I will ask you 
if Dr. Silverman, the other member of the board of election with you, was not 
a partisan of James Wickersham?— A. He was. He was a verv strong Wick- 
ersham man. -He expressed himself right at the polls. Of course, there" was no 
one else there at the time but us of the board, and he said it was purely a 
matter of friendship with him that he was acting in favor of Judga Wickersham. 

Q. You were asked in your cross-examination about the natives sending out 
to catalogue houses for supplies, and in reply to that you stated that they 
sent out for some things when they had the money to spare. You state that 
some of the Aleuts at Afognak are heavily -indebted to Mr. retelling; is that 
correct? — A. Yes, sir. 



256 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. I will ask you if Mr. Pelellins:, running the campaign last fall, was not .i 
strong partisan of James Wickersham? — A. I don't know; I wasn't at Afognak 
last fall. 

Q. Is it not a fact that the island of Afognak and the grounds adjacent 
thereto have been reserved by the Government as a fishing reserve for the 
Alaska native tribes? 

(Objection by Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects for the reason that it calls 
for hearsay evidence, is leading and in no manner redirect, and, further, that the 
public records are the best evidence on the subject.) 

A. I have only understood that it was for people residing on Afognak Island. 
No one else can fish there. 

Q. Is it not a fact that no one is permitted to fish in waters adjacent to 
Afognak Island except the Aleuts and Creoles that are living there? — ^A. I 
understand it ; and even they have to have a permit. 

Q. As I understand it, no white man is permitted to fish unless he is married 
and has a family? — A. I don't know. 

Cecil R. King. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires May 19, 1917. 

TESTIMONY OF MAETIN LAESEN. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. IMai-tin Larsen. 

Q. What is your age? — A. Fifty-seven years. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Afognak Island. 

Q. How long have you lived on Afognak Island? — A. I came there in 1893. 

Q. You have resided there ever since? — A. Outside of having been away worli- 
ing at Valdez a couple of times, where I worked for the Government. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the natives of the Aleut village of Afognak? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the inhabitants of the Creole village of Afognak? — 
A. I'^es, sir. 

Q. Were you at Afognak on the day of election, to wit, November 7, 1917?— 
A. I was. 

Q Did you vote?— A. I did. 

Q. Were you in and about the voting place? — A. I just went in and voted and 
went right out. 

Q. Do you know of the residents of Afognak, which ones are Aleuts and 
which are Creoles? — A. I do. 

Q. I will ask if Ivan Algoon, who voted on election day last November 7, 
is an Aleut? — A. Yes. sir ; he lives in the Aleut village. 

Q. Is Mafrey Agick an Aleut — A. Yes ; he lives in the Aleut village. 

Q. Is Wasele Apolou an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut, he came from Uganik, 
Alaska. 

Q. Is Michael Boskofsky an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut but was adopted by 
a Creole family. 

Q. Is Logan Chanin an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut and lives in Little Afognak. 

Q. Is Ivan Derenoff an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut but was adopted by ti 
Creole family. 

Q. Is Wasele Eshnwak an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut. 

Q. Is Peter Kuwen an Aleut? — A. He is. 

Q. Is Nastacia Kilegmnan an Aleut? — A. She is an Aleut. 

Q. Is Timofey Naya an Aleut? — A. He is an Aleut. 

Q. Is Andrew Shunagin an Aleut? — A. He is. 

Q. Is John Taushwak an Aleut? — A. He is. 

Q. Is John Yakauak an Aleut? — A. He is. 

Q. Is Gregori Yakanak an Aleut? — A. He is. 

Q. Did you see John Taushwak at the place where they were holding the 
election? — A. I did. 

Q. Did yovi have any conversation with him? — A. No'. 

Q. Did any of these parties that you have just mentioned tell you that they 
voted for James Wickersham? 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 257 

(Objection by Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects on tbe ground that tlie 
same is incompetent and only hearsay and is not the best evidence and for the 
reason that the voter lias a right to Iiave liis ballot kept secret.) 

(Statement of Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe states that his understanding of 
the law is that once you establish that a voter has illegally voted you may then 
call for any testimony tending to show for which of the two contending parties 
he voted.) 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know where these Aleuts are at this time. I mean do yoii know 
where they work? — A. I do. 

Q. State where they are working now, first where is Ivan Alhoon? — A. He is 
working at the Government hatchery about 74 miles from Afognak. 

Q. Where is Mafrey Agick working? — A. He is at Malena fishing for the 
Kadiak Fisheries. 

Q. How far is Malena from Afognak? — A. It is a five-hour trip from Afognak. 

Q. Where is Wasele Apolon now? — A. I don't know where he is. 

Q. Where is Michael Boskofsky now? — A. He is at Paramonon on Afognak 
Island. 

Q. How far is this from Afognak? — A. It is about 30 miles. 

Q. Where is Logan Chanun? — A. He is at Little Afognak. 

Q. How far is that from Afognak? — A. Fifteen miles. 

Q. Where is Ivan Derenoff? — A. He is at Afognak. 

Q. Where is Wasele Eshnwak? — A. He is at Uyak Bay. 

Q. How far is that from Afognak? — A. About 65 miles. 

Q. Where is Peter Kewan? — A. He is at Uganik. 

Q. How far is that from Afognak? — A. Forty-three to forty-five miles. 

Q. Where is Nastacia Kilegman? — A. She is at Paramonon with her husband. 

Q. Where is Timofey Naya? — A. He is working at Afognak. 

Q. Where is Andrew Shunagin? — A. In Little Afognak. 

Q. AVhere is John Taushwak? — A. Working at Malena. 

Q. Where is John Takanak? — A. He is at Paramonon. 

Q. Where is Gregori Yakanak? — He is at Paramonon. 

Q. Do you know whether John Taushwak, at the election held on November 
7, 1917, induced any of the natives to go up and vote? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. Did you see him bring any of the Aleuts to the polls? — A. No. 

Q. Did you see him write out a ticket for some of the voters? — A. Yes. 

Q. Were those tickets for the Aleuts? — A. Yes. 

Q. What did he write on those tickets? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Did he go into the booths with them? — A. I don't know. 

Q. You saw him fix up the tickets? — A. Yes> sir. 

Q. He wasn't a judge of election, was he? — No. 

Q. How many tickets did you see him prepare? — A. One. 

Q. Do you know for whom that ticket was prepared ?• — A. No ; I don't 
remember. 

Q. What part of Afognak do you live in? — A. In Creole village. I live near 
the Russian church. 

Q. Do vou know whether the Aleuts in Afognak have a chief? — ^A. Yes; they 
have a chief. 

Q. Who is the chief?— A. Gregori Yakanak. 

Q. Are they separate and distinct from the Creole village? — A. No; from one 
end of the town to the other is a distance of about 2 miles. 

Q. Has this chief of the Aleut village at Afognak any control over the 
Creole village? — A. No; he has nothing to do with the Creole village. 

Q. Do the members of his tribe and in the village obey the chief? — A. Some- 
times they do. If they have got to work around the church they do. Outside 
of that they don't take much notice of him. 

Q. Do you know whether there' is many of those Aleuts who can read and 
write? — A. I know that John Tausrwak can read and write some, and also .John 
Yakonak, who has been going to school a little. 

Q. Now, this John Taushwak is the man that you saw preparing ballots last 
fall on election day? — A. Yes. 

Q. He is the Aleut, then, that can read and write? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is the man you saw preparing the ballots at the election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You know all of these Aleuts personally yourself? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you have known them for years? — ^A. Yes. 
13289—17 ^17 



258 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Do you know anything about the fishing reservation on the waters adjacent 
to Afognak as to whether or not it has been reserved for the Alaska natives or 
not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can any white man fish in these waters adjacent to Afognak Island who 
is not married to a native or Creole? 

( Objection by Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects to the question, because it 
calls for information which is a matter of purely public record ; the evidence 
solicited is hearsay and not the best evidence.) 

A. No, sir. 

Q. It is a reserve made for the Alaska natives? — A. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 

Q. Who grants the permits to fish in the waters adjacent to Afognak Island? — 
A. The fish commissioner. 

Q. Where is he stationed? — A. He is stationed at Kodiak now. 

Q. What is his name? — A. Mr. Ball. 

Q. You signed an affidavit some time ago, Mr. Larsen, did you not? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

(Mr. Donohoe objects on the ground that no affidavit has been introduced by 
contestee. ) 

Q. At whose request did you sign the affidavit? 

(Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on the ground that it is not 
proper cross-examination. The affidavit has not been introduced in evidence. 
The contents of the affidavit is not disclosed, and it is incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial.) 

A. Mr. Armstrong. 

Q. Who prepared the affidavit? 

( Objection by Mr. Donohoe. Mr. Donohoe objects on the ground above stated. ) 

A. I don't know. 

Q. It was already written when you signed it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The Armstrong you refer to is the deputy United States marshal? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know what the affidavit contained ? — A. I do not. 

Q. You have testified about a number of persons whose names were read to 
you as being Aleuts ; do you know that Andrew Shunagin is an Aleut? — -A. I 
don't know any more than the fact they call him an Aleut. 

Q. Who calls him? — A. Everybody. 

Q. You couldn't tell him as an Aleut by looking at him? — A. I don't know. 

Q. You find it hard to draw the line between the Aleuts and Creoles? — A. No. 

Q. You are just as sure that Andrew Shunagin is an Aleut that you are sure 
that any of the other names you have testified to are Aleuts? — A. My father-in- 
law told me that they were Aleuts. 

Q. Then you couldn't tell by looking at him whether he was an Aleut or not? — 
A. No ; it is a church record. 

Q. Did you read the church record? — A. I heard Father Kashevaroff! say so. 

Q. Then these people are Aleuts because you heard Father Kashevaroff say 
so? — A. No; it is in the church records. 

Q. Now, Mr. Larsen, don't you know that you are under oath and are swearing 
to the truth? — A. Yes. 

Q. You testified that Simeon Berestoff was an Aleut. Now, how do you know 
him to be an Aleut? — A. No, sir ; I never testified to that. 

Q. Who is Nastacia Kilegman? — A. She is an Aleut. 

Q. AVhere is her husband? — A. At Paramonon. 

Q. What is he doing there? — A. Fishing for the Kadiak B^'isheries Co. 

Q. He is also an Aleut? — A. Yes. 

Q. How do you know him to be an Aleut? Did you hear Father KashevarofE 
testify that he was an Aleut? — A. No. 

Q. Then how did you know him to be an Aleut? You testified about the chief 
that sometimes the Aleuts obeyed him and sometimes they did not, is that cor- 
rect?— A. It is. 

Q. You said they generally obeyed him when there was anything to do around 
the church?— A. Yes. 

Q. Is his wife a full-blooded Aleut? — A. No. 

Q. Is she a Creole?— A. Yes. 

Q. Is your father-in-law a Creole? — A. Yes. 
Q. Where does he live? — A. In Afognak. 
Q. In Creole Town? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you have a chief there? — A. Yes. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 259 

Q. Does your wife have anything to do with the chief? — A. Nothing except 
they vote for a chief whenever a new one is elected. 

Q. How often do they elect a chief? — A. They elect a new chief every once in 
a while. 

Q. Who is chief now? — A. Nichol Sheratin. 

Q. What is his business? — A. I don't know exactly what his business is; it is 
generally to keep order. 

Q. His duties are practically the same then as the Aleut chief? — A. Prac- 
tically the same. 

Q. When the fishermen want more wages they start things through their chief, 
then?— A. Yes. 

Q. He is a walking delegate? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Some time ago they had meeting over at Ouzinki between the Aleut chief of 
Afognak and the Ouzinki chief? — A. Yes. 

Q. For what was this meeting called? — A. To arrange for more pay for fish. 

Q. This chief, then, is the head of a sort of labor organization? — A. Yes. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. How many people did you say are living in Afognak, in both villages, over 
the age of 21 years, just men alone? — A. About 1.50. 

Q. How many of those inhabitants are white men ; I mean that are neither 
Aleuts or Creoles? — ^A. Twenty-one men, white. 

Q. And the rest of the people living on Afognak are either Aleuts or Creoles? — 
A. Yes. 

A. Yes ; all the rest of these men. 

Q. Now, the Creoles have a chief the same as the Aleuts, but the white men 
that are there have nothing to do with that chief? — ^A. No. 

Martin Labsen. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Feank ,T. Hayes. 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

certificate oe notaey. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Third Division, ss: 

I, Frank .T. Hayes, notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly 
commissioned and sworn, residing at Valdez, Alaska, do hereby certify that 
pursuant to the notice served on contestant James Wickersham, at Auburn, 
King County, State of Washington, on the 27th day of .Tune, 1917, which said 
notice is attached to the deposition of Arthur Lang, and pursuant to the sitpu- 
lation hereinbefore set forth entered into on the 7th day of .July, 1917, be- 
tween said contestant James Wickersham, acting by and through his duly ac- 
credited attorney, John Rustgard, and said contestee Charles A. Sulzer, acting 
through his duly accredited attorney, T. J. Donohue, personally appeared be- 
fore me at the hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the 7th day of July, 
1917, at the office of the deputy United States marshal at the town of Kodiak, 
third judicial division, Territory of Alaska, Earnest Strickler, Father N. P. 
Kashevaroff, Cecil King, and Martin Larsen, witnesses on behalf of Charles A. 
Sulzer, contestee. That said witnesses were each by me first duly sworn to 
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then gave their 
depositions as hereinbefore set forth upon the oral interrogatories propounded 
to each of them by T. J. Donohue, attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, contesree, and 
upon the oral cross-interrogatories propounded to each of them by .John Rust- 
gard. attorney for James Wickersham, contestant. That said depositions after 
being taken in shorthand were typewritten by me, and after being so typewritten 
were submitted to and read by the attorneys of each of said parties and ap- 
proved by them as a true and correct transcript of the sworn testimony of the 
respective witnesses, and said respective depositions were read to each of 
said witnesses and each of said witnesses then and there subscribed and at- 
tested his respective deposition as being true in all respects and as being the 
testimony given by him. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial 
seal this 8th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Feank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 



260 WIGKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

.STIPULATION. 

Whereas Charles A. Snlzer. contestee. served upon James Wickersliam. con- 
testant, on the 27th day of Jnne, 1917, at Seattle. Wash., a notice of his inten- 
tion to take depositions at Afogrnak. Alaska, in support of his answer to contest- 
ant's petition, on the 9th day of July. 1917, and 

Whereas John Rnstgard. attorney for .Tames Wickersliam, contestant, and 
T. .T. Donohoe. attorney for Charles A. Siilzer. contestee, arrived at Kodiak on 
the 6th day of July. 1917, for the purpose of takina; said depositions, and having^ 
taken the said depositions at Kodiak in accordance Avith the said notice and 
stipulation entered into, the parties now desire to proceed to Afognak and 
vicinity and take the depositions of witnesses for the si^id contestee in that 
vicinity, and owing to the fact that said witnesses are scattered over an area of 
60 or 70 miles, and it will he necessary to take their depositions at various times 
and various places. 

Now, therefore, for the purpose of faciliating the taking of said depositions, 
it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the above- 
entitled contest, by and through their respective attorneys, that the depositions 
on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, as provided for in the notice served 
upon the said James Wickersliam on the 27th day of June, 1917, to be taken at 
Afognak, may be taken at any time or place where such witnesses are found, 
provided that the .said John Rustgard. attorney for the same .Tames Wicker- 
sham, contestant, is present at the taking of the same, and provided further that 
the said John Rustgard, as attorney for contestant, reserves the right to make 
any objections he may have to the taking of said depositions other than as to 
the time and place of taking them. This stipulation is entered into for the pur- 
pose of saving time in the taking of said depositions. 

Dated at Kodiak, Alaska, this 7th day of July, 1917. 

John Rustgaed, 
Attorney for James Wicker sham, Contestant. 

T. J. DONOHOE, 

Attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, Contestee. 

DEPOSITIONS OF .TULItJS FORSMAN, E. PETELLIN, IVAN ALHOON, IVAN DERENOFF, 
GEEGORI YAKANAK, CHARLES PAJOMAN. 

Be it remembered that pursuant to the notice hereunto annexed and the 
stipulation this day entered into between John Rustgard. the duly and regu- 
larly accredited attorney of .Tames AVickersham, contestant, and T. .T. Donohoe. 
the duly and regularly accredited attorney of Charles A. Sulzer, at the hour of 
7.30 o'clock in the evening on the Stli day of July, 1917, at the schoolhouse in 
the town of Afgonak, Alaska, third .iurlicial division, before me, Frank .T. 
Hayes, a notary public in and for the said Territory of Alaska, personally ap- 
peared Julius Forsman, E. Petellin. Ivan Alhoon, Ivan Dei'enoff. Gregori 
Yakanak, and Charles Pajoman, witnesses produced on behalf of Charles A. 
Sulzer. the above-named contestee in the above-entitled contest now pending 
before the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Sixty-fifth Congress, 
first session. Each of said witnesses were by me first duly sworn to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and were then and there 
examined and interrogated by T. J. Donohoe. attorney for the said Charles A. 
Sulzer. contestee, and by John Rustgard, attorney for the same James Wicker- 
sliam, contestant, and said witnesses testified as follows: 

TESTIMONY OF JULIUS FORSMAN. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

O. ]\Tr. Forsman. where were you born? — A. Finland. 

Q. When did you first come to America? — A. In 1878. 

Q. When did you come to Alaska? 

(Objection of INIr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects to the examination of 
this witness for the reason that no notice has been served upon James Wicker- 
sham that this man's deposition would be taken. At this time I further object 
to the examination of any witnesses whatsoever on the question of whether 
or not any particular elector had a right to vote at the Afognak precinct at 
last Delegate election, for the reason further that -no specific complaint is made 
in the answer of any particular individual who voted unlawfully, nor is there 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 261 ' 

any allegation made in the answer of any particular unlawful acts. I further 
wish to enter an objection to the examination of any and all witnesses for the 
reason that the notice of depositions was not served upon Wickersham in 
time to enable him to either personally come and be present at the taking of 
these depositions or in time to forward me a notice of the taking of the depo- 
sitions, and for that reason I have no knowledge of who were designated in 
the notice as witnesses.) 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Counsel for the contestee states that the notice was served 
upon James Wickersham on the 27th day of June, 1917, somewhere in the 
State of Washington, and the fact that Wickersham had sufficient notice is 
borne out bv the fact that Mr. Rustgard is here representing him. 

A. In 1888. 

Q. Are you a naturalized citizen? — A. No. I have just my intention papers. 
I sent down for my full papers, but have not received them. 

Q. You voted at the election held in Afognak on the 7th day of November, 
1916, at which there was a Delegate from Alaska to Congress voted for? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. For whom did you vote for Delegate to Congress? 

(Objection by Mr. Rustgard. Mr. Rustgard objects to this as being imma- 
terial and irrelevant, and for the further reason that no charge has been made 
by contestee that this witness voted unlawfully, and for the further reason 
above stated, and there is no allegation made by contestee that the vote was 
fraudulent, and, moreover, any voter has the right to have his ballot kept 
secret, and it is too late at this time to determine whether his vote was ille- 
gally or legally cast, as the matter was passed upon by the judges of election 
honestly. ) 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee admits that where a voter has cast a legal ballot 
that he is entitled to secrecy, but where an illegal ballot is cast, as in the 
case of the witness now on the stand, the law does not extend to the voter the 
protection of secrecy. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I will say that you don't have to answer the question unless 
you want to. 

A. Wickersham. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 
Q. When did you come to the United States? — A. 1878. 
Q. How old are you?— A. 62. 

Julius Foesman. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Feank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public in and far the Territory of Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

TESTIMONY OF E. PETELLIN. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. Mr. Petellin, you reside in Afognak? — A. I do. 

Q. How long have you resided in Afognak? — A. Since the fall of 1907. 

Q. You were one of the judges of election at the election held the 7th day 
of November, 1916, at Afognak, Alaska ? — A. I was. 

Q. As one of the judges of election do you recall keeping a registration book 
of the voters at that election? — A. Yes. 

Q. I now hand you the registration book for the November 7. 1916, election 
at which a Delegate to the United States Congress was voted for, and ask you 
if this is the registration book that was kept at that election at Afognak?— A. 
I believe it is._ 

Q. I will ask you to state what is meant by the " crosses " in ink on the 
right-hand side of the various names which appear in that registration book?— 
A. Well, as near as I remember, these crosses were put in for the people who 
were unable to write, and who asked the judges to assist them. 

Q. Wherever there is crosses in ink on the right-hand sile of the names it is 
to indicate that the parties were unable to write their own names, then? — A. 
No; not unnecessary to write his own name, but as near as I can remember 
some miglit not ))e able to write their own names, but as to number I can not 
state positively. 



262 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

(>. Is not every name that appears upon this registry booli which has a cross 
at the right-hand side of it written in your own handv\'riting? — A. I believe 
tliey are. 

Q. Out of 62 voters who cast their ballots at the Afognak precinct at the 
election held on the 7th day of November, 1916, there were 21 for whom you 
made these crosses that were unable to write their own names? — A. They 
might not be able to write them in English. 

Q. Did anybody other than the judges of election at the election held on the 
7th day of November, 1916. for the election of a Delegate to Congress assist the 
illiterate voters in preparing their ballots? — A. Yes; I believe there was. 

Q. State who that was. — A. As near as I can remember, believe it was John 
Taushwak. 

Q. How many ballots did John Taushwak prepare for illiterate voters? — A. 
That I don't remember. 

Q. John Taushwak is an Aleut, is he not — A. Well, he is a native of this 
country. 

Q. He lives in the Aleut village, does he not? — A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. Petellin, previous to the last election you were working for Wicker- 
sham, were you not? I mean by that you were a strong partisan of Mr. Wicker- 
sham's and were advocating his election? — A. You mean the election previous to 
this one? 

Q. No ; I mean previous to the election last fall, during the latter summer 
months, and right up until election day. — A. I might have said a few words in 
his behalf. I always believe people have a right to vote for whom they please. 
I didn't want to mix up in politics at all. 

Q. Where did John Taushwak prepare these ballots? — A. He prepared them 
in the voting place. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 

Q. As soon as you discovered that John Taushwak helped to prepai'e some 
ballots did you call his attention to the law on the subject? — A. There was a 
sheet which had been sent along with the various- election supplies regarding 
the marking of ballots by the judges of election, and I showed that sheet of in- 
structions to him. 

Q. And so, then, you called his attention to the rule as soon as you found out 
he was helping to mark some of the ballots? — A. Yes; I did. 

Q. Did he stop then?— A. He did. 

Q. The election rules were .sent you by the officials who sent you the other 
documents pertaining to election? — ^A. Yes; they all came together in one 
envelope. 

Q. Did you and the other judges of election try to post yourselves on those 
rules and instructions and follow them? — A. Yes, sir ; we did. We tried to as 
far as possible. 

Q. You state that you thought all these names on the register marked with 
an " X " on the right-hand side were possibly in your own handwriting. I 
want to call your attention ta the name of Peter Kewan and ask you whether 
that is in the same handwriting as the otlier names on the register? — A. It is 
not in my handwriting. 

Q. The name of .Julius Forsman; is that in your handwriting? — A. No. 

Q. The name of Martin Larsen ; is that in your handwriting? — A. No. 

Q. Who put on these crosses on the right-hand side of the names? — A. The 
people who ordered them, as near as I can remember. 

Q. Y'ou, then, followed the system that when a person came to vote you had 
him sign this register for himself if he could? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When a person couldn't write his own name you wrote it for him and had 
him put the cross after? — A. Yes; when, he couldn't write it in English. • 

Q. What are these crosses on the left-hand side of the list of names? — A. I 
don't know. 

Q. When were the crosses put on? — A. I don't know, unless they were put 
on since the vote was sent from here. 

Q. Then they have been put on since this list was mailed to the clerk of the 
court? — A. Yes. 

Q. How many of these parties whose names you wrote" on the register book 
are now in Afognak at the present time? — A. I can't say positively; but there 
are, I believe, approximately six of them. 

Q. Did the judges of election discuss politics or the candidates at the polling 
place? — A. Not that I know of. I don't remember of any discussion. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 263 

Q. Was there any discussion of the candidates in the polling place at all? — 
A. I don't remember. 

Q. Then j^ou think that all of the judges of election followed the rules as near 
as they could understand them? — A. Yes; we tried to. 

Q. All the judges tried to follow the rule, then?^A. Yes. 

Q. You knew personally all of these judges of election, did you not? — A. Yes. 

Q. You were born in Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And have lived here at Afognak since 1907? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. I was born at Kodiak. 

Q. How far is that from Afognak? — A. Kodiak is somewhere between 25 and 
30 miles from here. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I am 47 years old. 

Q. You speak the Aleut, the Russian, and English languages, do you not? — • 
A. No ; I speak English, Russian, and possibly a few words in the Aleut — not 
enough Aleut to make only a few sentences. 

Q. Are there many natives of this place who do not speak any other language 
but Aleut, or do most of them speak Russian? — A. I don't know of anyone who 
speaks nothing but the Aleut language. 

Q. When you speak to the i-esidents of this town who are raised here you 
speak Russian? — A. Yes; both Russian and English. 

Q. Did you personally know these parties on this registration book opposite 
whose names to the right there is a cross? — A. Yes. 

Q. You have known all of them nearly all your lifetime, have you not? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know them to be legal voters at the time they voted? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects, because this calls for a conclusion from the 
witness. The qualifications of a legal voter have not been stated to the wit- 
ness, and no evidence has been offered to show that he knows what ones are 
legally entitled to vote for a Delegate to Congress. 

A. i belived them to be legal voters. 

Q. Their reputation is that they were born in Alaska? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects; it is immaterial, for reputation does not 
qualify them as voters. 

A. (No answer is given by witness.) 

Q. They belong to the class known as the Aleuts, do they not? 

A. (No answer is given by witness.) 

Q. What race does Ivan Alhoon belong to? — A. In my opinion he belongs to 
the mixed blood. He is a native of Alaska. 

Q. You think that none of those who voted were pure Aleuts, but were eighth 
white or had some mixed blood in them? — A. I think the most of them, or, 
rather, nearly all of them. 

Q. How about Ivan Alhoon? — A. In my opinion he is of mixed blood. 

Q. What about Mafrey Agick? — A. I think he is of mixed blood. 

Q. What about Wasele Apolon?— A. I can't say. 

Q. Then you find it hard to tell? — A. It is very hard to tell. 

Q. Referring to those people here in Afognak who live in that part of the 
settlement which is known as Aleut town, do those people live in the same 
kind of house as and now live in the same way as other people? — A. They do. 

Q. Do they keep cattle? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have they been keeping cattle? — A. From the Russian times, be- 
fore the country was ceded by Russia to the United States. 

Q. Isn't it a fact that prior to the eruption in 1912 practically every family 
in that part of the town kept cattle? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that keeping cattle does not 
qualify one as an American citizen. 

A. Quite a number of them did. 

Q. You then say it has been a common thing among those people to keep a 
milch cow, has it not? — A. It has been a common thing. 

Q. At the eruption when the country became covered with ashes in 1912 
a good many cattle were killed off, were they not? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects to the question as incompetent and irrele- 
vant, and is simply encumbering the records. 

A. Yes. Tliey died shortly after. 

Q. The cattle died because the food for them was destroyed by the ashes? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that it has no bearing on the 
case. 

A. Yes ; they died from scarcity of food. 



264 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Since that time they have comnieuceci to acquire cattle again? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects for reasons set forth in last objection above. 

A. Some ; those who \^'ere able to. 

Q. Do those people occupying that part of town known as Aleut town here 
in Afognak raise their own potatoes and other vegetables? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects for reasons set forth above. 

A. Yes ; they have their own gardens. 

Q. They practically all have vegetable gardens in proximity of their homes? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects for reasons set forth above. 

A. Yes; quite a number of them. * 

Q. Do not most of them have their own homes? — A. Yes. 

Q. Those people living in the Aleut village, so called, do they have any gov- 
ernment of their own such as Indian tribal relations? — A. Not that I know of. 

Q. They have no village government? — A. No. 

Q. The town is not incorporated? — A. No. 

Q. l^'ou have no judge here? — A. No. 

Q. No commissioner here either? — A. No. 

Q. No deputy marshal here? — A. No. 

Q. There has been some testimony to the effect that they have a chief. Will 
you explain what the duties and the functions of that chief is? What is his 
business? — A. He acts as a sort of a chairman over the bunch for any work 
that is to be done in the town ; that is, such when some repairs have to be 
done to the road or to the church, and minor things of the like. 

Q. If they have a meeting in the town he is chairman? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do the people in this town sometimes hold meetings to discuss what to do 
for the public good? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who is the chairman of such meetings? — A. As a rule the chief is. 

Q. Who elects the chief? — A. They elect the chief themselves; I mean the 
people do. 

Q. How often do they elect a chief? — A. They don't have any rule set. Some- 
times a chief serves as long as he wants to and then resigns. They have not 
regular rule. 

Q. Then, if they don't like the chief, do they discharge him and elect a new 
one? — A. They have that right. 

Q. Do they change chiefs sometimes?— A. Yes; they do. 

Q. What else does the chief do except act as chairman of the meetings; does 
he have anything to do with the church? — A. Not that I know of. 

Q. In case of reiiairs to the church, has the chief authority to make the re- 
pairs ? — A. As a rule, I think the priest looks out to the ordering of the repairs ; 
he asks the chief to call a meeting. 

Q. Is it not a fact that the chief is selected at the suggestion of the priest? — 
A. At times ; yes. 

Q. If you want to build a sidewalk or improve the streets, you call a public 
meeting to discuss it? — A. Yes. 

Q. Has there ever been any talk of abolishing the chief? — A. Yes: one time, 
when a certain remark M'as passed that they intended to abolish chiefs and at 
the time the predecessor to this priest was leaving. However, the departing 
priest recommended the retaining of the chief, and it was mainly for this rea- 
son that the chief was not abolished. Another thing, by having a chief it makes 
it handier for the priest to call on the chief, and he, the chief, can call a meet- 
ing of everybody. 

Q. Now, this system of liolding town meetings and electing a head, which in 
the English language you call him chief ; now, isn't that a system imported from 
Russia, as far as you can remember.? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects to the question as calling for hearsay testi- 
mony. 

A. I believe it is for the reason that among these mixed blood even the pure- 
blood Russians they used to have that system, and they call it " Desetnik." 

Q. And reputation is that it is a system which you have inherited from 
Russia ? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that it is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and hearsay evidence, and on the further ground that reputating has no 
bearing on this contest. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is not the system which you have followed here in these towns the same 
system which is referred to in Russia as the " Semstos " system? 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE, 265 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that same is incompetent and 
Irrelevant. 

A. I believe so. 

Q. Do you know whether the people living in the Aleut town of Afognak were 
called upon to pay and did pay poll taxes under the Territorial law of 1913? — 
A. I believe they did. 

Q. As far as you know, then, all of those who were of the proper age did pay 
that tax? — A. As far as my knowledge goes. 

Q. You know that written demand was made upon them for that poll tax and 
was sent out by the commissioner, irrespective of whether they were Aleuts or 
Creoles ? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that it is irrelevant and in- 
competent testimony. The fact that they did or did not pay a poll tax did not 
qualify them as legal voters at the Delegate election. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You do not know of any Aleut who did not pay poll taxes if he was within 
the proper age limit? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on grounds of reasons set forth above. 

A. I do not. 

Q. At the election last fall, whenever the judges marked the ballots for a 
voter, did they mark that fact upon the ballot? — A. Yes; the judges signed on 
the opposite side that they marked the ballot. 

Q. You do not mean to testify that all of those who could not write their own 
name in English had assistance in marking the ballot? — A. No; I don't think so. 
I do not remember. 

Q. You heard the testimony of .Julius Forsman, who testified that he was not 
a citizen of the United States. Did he tell you that he was not a citizen? — A. I 
think he said he was a citizen of the United States. 

Q. And you let him vote because you thought he was a citizen of the United 
States? — A. Yes. sir. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. .John Taushwak was not a judge of the election was he? — A. No. 

Q. Did he sign his name on the back of any of the ballots which he pre- 
pared for some of those who could not read or write? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. Were you the judge of election that prepared all the ballots for the voters 
who could not read or write? — A. That I can't remember positively. 

Q. Do you recall at this time of any of the other two judges preparing any 
ballots for the voters who could not read or write? — A. I meant to say that 
the three judges assisted those who requested it. 

Q. Did all three judges sign on the back of the ballot the fact that those 
particular ballots had been prepared for those voters who could not read or 
write? — ^A. As near as I can remember. 

Q. None of the judges signed the ballots that John Taushwak had? — A. Not 
that I know of. 

Q. Did you in your election returns to the governor of the Territory of Alaska 
make any note of the fact that .John Taushwak prepared any of the ballots for 
the voters who could not read or write? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. You would remember if such a report had been made. A. I don't remem- 
ber such a report being made. 

Q. You said there were six of the voters who could not read or write that 
are now in the village of Afognak? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects because witness has not so testified. He 
only testified that he thought there were but six at present in this village whose 
names he wrote on the registration books because they claimed they could not 
write their own names in English. 

Q. Then how many of the voters who have signed the register by a cross are 
now in the village of Afognak? Name them. — A. Ivan Derenoff, Ivan Alhoon, 
John Yakanak, Gregori Yakanak, Alex Knagin, sr., and Alexandra Nekrasoff. 

Q. Is .John Taushwak here? — A. I don't think he is. 

Q. Do you know where he is? — A. I think he is out fishing. 

Q. Do you know where he is fishing? — A. Either at Malena or Paranoff. 

Q. Is it not a fact that most of the Aleut and Creole voters are at this time 
scattered around various fishing stations? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The Creoles have a chief in Afognak the same as the Aleuts in their 
village? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The chief in the Creole village has practically the same authority over 
them as the chief in the Aleut village has over the Aleuts? — A. As far as 



266 * WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

authority is concerned, I don't know as any of the chiefs have authority over 
them. 

Q. Are the duties of tlie cliief in tlie Creole village the same as the duties of 
the chief in the Aleut village? — A. I don't know. 

Q. There are two distinct villages in the Afognak voting precinct, one known 
as Creole village and the other Aleut village? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the selection of the chiefs in the Aleut village, does anyone but the 
Aleuts have a right to participate at this selection? — A. If the other end of 
the town wishes to participate In that matter they are at liberty to do so. 

Q. You mean to say that they have not separate chiefs? — A. Sometimes they 
have separate chiefs elected at separate meetings and sometimes they hold 
their meetings all together. 

Q. When did they have a meeting at which the Creoles assisted in the selec- 
tion of the Aleut chief, and who was the chief selected? — A. There was one 
instance where a Creole was a chief of the Aleut village. 

Q. You are what is termed a Creole, are you not? — A. Yes, using the term, 
I suppose I am. 

Q. Did you ever assist in the election of an Aleut chief? — A. No. 

Q. When did the Aleuts assist in the election of a Creole chief? — A. I can't 
I'ecall an instance. 

Q. Is it not a fact that on the 7th day of November, 1916, the Aleut villagfe 
had their own chief and th"^ Creole village had its own chief? — A. I think they 
did have. 

Q. Then you say even the Aleuts had a chief last fall at election day, and 
the Creoles also had a chief; is this correct? — A. I think it is. 

Q. Y"ou know it, do you not? — A. Yes. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 

Q. What is the reason they have two chiefs here at Afognak instead of only 
one? — A. I think ihey had some disagreement. 

Q. Do you know whether or not the people here at Afognak have only one 
chief instead of two? — A. I do not. 

Q. When asking you about the livelihood of these people living in Aleut 
town of Afognak, I omitted to ask you whether or not these people raised any 
ducks, any geese, any chickens, or barnyard fowls? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground that it is encumbering the 
record. 

A. Yes ; they keep chickens. 

Q. They have followed that industry a great many years? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee ob.iects on the ground stated above. 

Q. When the judges were asked to help the voter to mark the ballots, did 
all the judges see the ballot marked? — A. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF IVAN ALHOON. 

CECIL R. KING, duly and regidarly sworn as interpreter. 
Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe. 

Q. What is your name? — A. Ivan Alhoon. 

Q. Where do you live? — A, In Afognak, Alaska. 

Q. Do you live in that part of town known as Aleut town? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you live there on the 7th day of November, 1916? — A. I guess so. 

Q. Do you speak the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you write the English language? — A. No; I can't write. 

Q. Are you an Aleut? — A. I have an Aleut mother and Creole father. 

Q. Did you vote on the 7th day of November, 1916, at the election of a 
Delegate from Alaska ? — -A. Yes ; I voted. 

Q. For whom did you vote for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. Rustgard. Contestant objects to the cpiestion because the witness has a 
right to Iveep it his own secret as to whom he voted for, and there is so far 
nothing in the record to show that he is not a perfectly legal voter and a citizen 
of the United States. Moreover, I object to the testimony because the con- 
testant has not been notified liy contestee that he intended to take the deposition 
of this witness. Moreover, there is no allegation in contestee's answer that this 
witness voted illegally. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee desires to state that the notice served on James 
Wickersham on the 27th day of June, 1917, specifically stated that the deposition 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 267 

of this witness would be talven. Furtlier, that the evidence by deposition here- 
tofore taken establislies tliat tliis witness was an illegal voter, and therefore 
the secrecy of the ballot does not apply to him as his vote was an illegal ballot. 

A. I don't know. The papers were here, and I folded them up and put them 
in the ballot box. 

Q. Who told you to come to the election and vote? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects to the question because it is an attempt on 
the part of counsel for Sulzer to show fraud on the part of the judges of elec- 
tion ; and no such fraud has been alleged, noi- has any notice of any character 
been given to the contestant that there was any intention to introduce evidence 
of that character. 

A. It is always understood that at the elections they all must come and vote, 
and that is the reason I came 

Q. Did John Taushwak tell you to come up and vote on election day? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects to the question, because counsel is leading 
his own witness, and for the reasons stated in my previous objections. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee desires it to appear in this deposition that this wit- 
ness is a hostile witness, and therefore leading questions are permissible. 

A. He didn't tell me. 

Q. Did no one tell you to come up and vote on election day last Novem- 
ber? — A. When I saw them all coming up here to vote, I came on up with them, 
as it has always been customary to vote. 

Q. You do not know for whom you voted for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects ; witness has a right to conceal who he 
voted for. 

A. The fellow I asked to write for me ; I don't know whose name he voted for. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Ritstgaed : 

Q. How old are you? — A. I am past 40. 

Q. Have you a family? — A. I am married; my children are dead. AVe have 
an adopted child. 

Q. Have you a home here in Afognak? — A. Yes. 

Q. What do you work at? — A. In the summertime I fish for salmon. 

Q. Have you a cow? 

Mr. DoTs'OHUE. Contestee admits that he has cows, chickens, pigs, pigeons, 
geese, and other fowls and animals. 

Q. Were you born in Alaska? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. I was born in Afognak. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 
Q. l^our home that you speak of is in the Aleut village?— A. Yes, sir; it is. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 
Q. Do you speak Russian? — A. No. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohue : 
Q. The only language you speak is the Aleut? — A. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF IVAN DEEENOFF. 

Cecil R. King first duly sworn as interpreter, and the witnesses were there- 
upon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohue : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Ivan Derenoff. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Afognak, Alaska. 

Q. What part of Afognak? — A. Creole Town. 

Q. Can you read the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you write the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you read and write the Russian language? — A. I can. I can read 
and write both. 

<5. Did you vote at the election held in Afognak on the 7th day of November, 
1916, at which a Delegate to Congress from Alaska was voted for? — A. I did. 

Q. For whom did you vote for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. Rustgaed. Contestant objects, because this witness has a right to keep 
it his own secret as to whom he voted for, and so far the evidence shows affirma- 
tively that he is a legal voter. Moreover, no charge has been made by the 
contestee in his answer that this witness has voted illegally. 



268 WIGKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee makes the same statement in response to this ob- 
jection that he made to tlie former objection in the last previous witness who 
was on tlie stand. 

A. James Wickersham. 

Q. What language are you now speaking to the interpreter in this examina- 
tion? — A. Russian, the only language I know. 

Q. You do not know the Aleut language? — Yes; I do know it. 

Q. You can speak the Aleut, then? — A. I talk with the Aleuts in Aleut, 
Russians in Creole, and speak a little English. 

Q. Who marked your ballot on which you voted for Delegate to Congress 
at the last election? 

Mr. RusTGAitD. Contestant objects ; this question is irrelevant, immaterial, 
and incompetent, and has no bearing on the issues set up in the answer of 
contestee. 

A. I have forgotten who it was. I asked some one who could read English. 
I held the pencil myself. 

Q. Did not John Taushwak mark the ballot for you? — A. I can't remember. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 

Q. Where were you born? — ^A. Afognak. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I will be 66 years old in August. 

Q. You were baptized in the Russian Church when an infant? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yoii have been a member of the Greek-Russian Church ever since? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. And you are now a member at the present time? — A. Yes. 

Q. Then all your life you have been a regular communicant of that church? — 
A. Yes. 

Mr. DoKOHOE. Contestee objects on the reason that the fact that he is a 
member of the Russian Church does not make him an Aiuerican citizen. It 
has not any bearing on his citizenship whatever. 

Q. Were your parents members of the Russian-Greek Church? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects for the same reasons set forth above. 

A. Yes, sir ; all of them. 

Q. Does your wife and children belong to the Russian-Greek Church? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects for the same reasons set forth above. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have a wife and children? — A. I have a wife and children, thi-ee 
sons and one daughter. The daughter is married. Two of my sons are working 
at Latouche and one at Uyak. 

Q. Your two sons at Latouche are working in the mine at Latouche now? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. You have your own home here in Afognak? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you keep a gai'den and raise vegetables? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you keep a garden and raise vegetables, then, and also keep some 
cows, chicks, and pigs? — A. I have no pigs. Had a horse, but he died this year. 

Q. Have you and your parents before you kept cows and chickens as far 
back as you can i-emember? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have you lived here in Afognak? — A. Since I was born. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I will be 66 years old next August. 

Q. How have you occupied your time on the island? — A. In tishing and hunt- 
ing. In former years I used to go hunting to different places on Cook Inlet and 
around as far as Uuga and other places where they had hunting stations. 

Q. Do the people here in Afognak have a chief? — A. I don't know. Accord- 
ing to the word that has been used formerly, he is a chief, as far as the word 
" chief " goes. 

Q. You mean he is chief only in name? — A. It is only the word " chief." He 
is really the foreman in any work that may be needed around the church or 
roads. He goes around, asks the people what he can do to help them, and if 
there is any work to be done on the road he goes and works the same as the 
rest of the men. 

Q. The chief works, then? — A. Yes; the chief Avorks with his hands on the 
road the same as anyone else. 

Q. Does he make any laws or issue any commands for the people here? — A. 
He don't make any laws. They have a meeting for that purpose, if there is 
any work to be done. 

Q. Who calls the meeting when they hold a meeting? — A. He calls it him- 
self ; he tells his next neighbor and they pass it along, one to another, and then, 
again, he goes to each house himself personally. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 269 

Q. And calls the meeting? — A. Yes. 

Q. At those meetings you come together and discuss what is to be done by 
the town? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has the chief any authority to tell the people what to do, except to follow 
the will of the meeting? — A. That is all. They always arrange for that at the 
meeting. 

Q. Do you know where this custom came from, to hold town meetings and 
discuss the questions that are proposed at these meetings? — A. From Russia. 

Q. What is the reason that there are two chiefs here at Afognak? — A. They 
don't call him chief here ; they call him a " disetnik." 

Q. You call them by the Russian name? — A. Yes. 

Q. This foreman is called by the Russian name " disetnik " even by the 
Aleuts, is it not? — A. Yes, sir; that is the right name for them. 

Q. Will you state the reason why they have two " disetniks " at Afognak? 
Why is one " disetnik " not enough? — A. I don't know. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 
Q. The Aleuts call their chief " Tyoue," do they not? — A. Yes; they call him 
" Tyone." 

TESTIMONY BY GKEGOEI Y'AKANAK. 

CECIL R. KING, first duly sworn as interpreter, and the witnesses were 
thereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. Gregori Yakanak. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. At Afognak. 

Q. What part of town do you live in? — A. In the Aleut village. 

Q. Are you the chief of the Aleut village of Afognak? — A. Yes, sir; I am. 

Q. Were you the chief at the time of the election in November last vear? — 
A. No. 

Q. Who was chief? — A. I misunderstood your question before. Yes ; I was 
chief. 

Q. Did you vote at the election held at Afognak on the 7th day of November,. 
1916, at which there was a Delegate to Congress voted for? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you read or write the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you read or write the Russian language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you speak the Russian language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you speak the English language?— A. No. 

Q. The only language you do speak and understand is the Aleut language is 
it not?— A. That is all. 

Q. Who did you vote for at the election held on the 7th day of November, 
1916. at which a Delegate to Congress was elected? 

Mr. RrsTGAED. Contestant objects to that question because witness has a right 
to keep it his own secret who he voted for. Further, for the reason that no 
allegation has been made by contestee that this witness cast an illegal ballot. 

A. I don't know ; I have forgotten. 

Q. What did you do when you came to the place where they were holding the 
election? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object to the question as being irrelevant and incompetent 
and having no bearing on the case. 

A. I had somebody to write it for me and I then put it in the box. 

Q. Did you tell any person who wrote it for you who you wanted to vote for 
for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RrsTGAED. Contestant objects to that as being immaterial and irrelevant 
and having no bearing upon any of the issues of the answer of the contestee. 

A. I have forgotten. 

Q. Did John Taushwak write your ballot for you? — A. I have forgotten. 

Q. Did you tell the person who wrote on your ballot who you wanted to vote 
for for Delegate? 

Mr. RusTGABD. Contestant objects on account of the reasons set forth above. 

A. I have forgotten whose name I told him to put on the ballot. 

Q. Who told you to come up to the place where they were holding the election 
and vote? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects on account of the reasons above set forth. 

A. No one. Everybody came up and I came along. 

Q. Did Mr. Petellin fix your ballot for you which you put in the box?— 
A. I don't know, but I think not. 



270 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Do you know any person that you voted for at that election? 

Mr. RusTGARD. Contestant objects on account of the reasons above set forth. 

A. I do not. 

Q. For whom did you vote for attorney general? 

Mr. RusTGAED. Contestant objects on grounds above set forth. 

A. The interpreter says he can not interpret this in the Aleut language. 

Q. For whom did you vote for senator? 

Mr. RusTGARD. Contestant objects on grounds above set forth. 

A. The interpreter says he can not interpret this in the Aleut language. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 

Q. How old are you?= — A. I am going on to 53 years of age. 

Q. You were born at Afognak? — A. No. I was born at Karluk, Alaska. 

Q. Have you a wife and children ? — A. My wife is dead. I have two children. 

Q. Have you your own home here in Afognak? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you a vegetable garden? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee admits that witness keeps cattle, pigs, chicks, and 
ducks. 

A. I have. 

Q. Are you a Creole or pure Aleut? — A. I am an Aleut, but my mother was a 
Creole? 

Q. Is there such a thing as a real pure Aleut at Afognak? — A. I don't think 
there is any, but I don't know. 

Q. You belong to the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. You were baptized into that church when an infant? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wei-e your parents communicants of the Greek-Russian Church? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Contestee objects on the ground the fact that witness's parents 
or children being communicants of the Greek-Russian Church does not in any 
manner establish the claim of citizenship. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been chief? — A. Fovu' years. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES PAJOMAN. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. What is your name? — A. Charles Pajoman. 

Q. What is your occupation? — A. I keep a general merchandise store at 
Afognak. 

Q. What is your age? — A. I am 47 years old. 

Q. How long have you resided at Afognak? — A. Nineteen years. 

Q. You are well acquainted in and around the town of Afgonak and in the 
Afognak voting precinct? — A. I am. 

Q. How long have you been conducting your store at Afognak? — A. Since 
1902. 

Q. During the time you have been in the store business yoii have had an op- 
portunity to learn of the educational qualifications of the natives in and around 
the town of Afognak as to whether or not they could read or write the English 
language? — A. I think I have. 

Q. I hand you the registration book kept at the election polls at the election 
held in the town of Afognak on the 7th day of November, 1916, at which a Dele- 
gate to Congress was voted for, which will show the names of 62 voters who cast 
their votes at said election. I now ask you to go over the list carefully and ex- 
amine the names and state how many of those 62 voters are able to read and 
write the English language intelligently. 

Mr. Rustgard. Contestant objects to the question as irrelevant and immaterial 
and not the best evidence, and for the further reason that the ability to read 
and write is not one of the qualifications of an elector. Moreover, the question 
is not defined to any particular individual charged with the crime of voting for 
Wickersham. 

A. Twenty-seven or 28. I find from an examination of the book that not more 
than 27 or 28 can read or write the English language. 

At the close of the testimony of the foregoing witnesses, taken at the village of 
Afognak, it was stipulated by and between James Wickersham, contestant, act- 
ing by and through his attorney, ,Tohn Rustgard, and Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee, acting by and through his attorney, T. J. Donohoe, that the signatures to 
the depositions of witnesses E. Petellin, Ivan Derenolf, Gregori Yakanak. Ivan 
Alhoon, and Charles I'ajoman be waived as the testimony was not transcribed 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 271 

and in order that the examination of other witnesses miglit be talven so that the 
parties could leave Kodiak about the 11th or 12th of July, 1917, to go to Seldovia, 
where further testimony is to be taken, and if they were unable to take the boat 
about the 11th or 12th of July they would be delayed at Kodiak for about 30 
days and that the testimony taken will be transcribed before the notary public 
whom it is taken and when so transcribed submitted to counsel for each of the 
parties for correction, if any there be. 

The parties to the above-named contest, acting by and through their respective 
attorneys, hereby agree that the above and foregoing testimony of E. Petellin, 
Ivan Derenoff, Gregori Yakanak, Ivan Alhoon, and Charles Pajoman is a full 
and true and correct transcript of the sworn testimony of said witnesses taken 
at the time and place above stated, and they further agree that the said depo- 
sitions shall have the same force and effect as if they had been read to the 
witnesses after being transcribed and the witnesses had signed the same. 

John Rustgakd, 
Attorney for James Wickersliam, Contestant. 

T. J. DONOHOE, 

Attorney for Charles A. Siilzer, Contestee. 

CEKTiriCATE OF NOTARY. 

United States of Amekica, 

Territory of Alaska, third division, ss: 

I, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly 
commissioned and sworn, residing at Yaldez, Alaska, do hereby certify that 
pursuant to the notice served on contestant. James Wickersham, at Auburn, 
King County, State of Washington, on the 27tli day of June, 1917, which said 
notice is attached to the deposition of Arthur Lang, and pursuant to the stipula- 
tion entered into on the 7th day of July, 1917, between James Wickersham, 
contestant, acting by and tlirough his duly accredited attorney, John Rustgard, 
and Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, acting by and through his duly accredited 
attorney, T. J. Donohoe, which said stipulation is attached to the foregoing 
depositions, personally appeared before me at the hour of 7.30 o'clock in the 
evening of the 8th day of July, 1917, at the public schoolhouse in the town of 
Afognak, Alaska, Julius Forsman, E. Petellin, Ivan Alhoon, Ivan Derenoff, Gregori 
Yakanak, and Charles Pajoman, witnesses on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee. That each of said witnesses was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then and there gave his deposition 
as hereinbefore set forth upon the oral interrogatories propounded to each of 
said witnesses by T. J. Donohoe. attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and 
upon the oral cross-interrogatories propounded to each of said witnesses by 
John Rustgard, attorney for James Wickersham, contestant ; that said deposi- 
tions after being taken in shorthand were typewritten by me and after being 
so typewritten were read and examined by each of the attorneys of the parties 
to the above-entitled contest and were approved by said parties to be a true and 
correct transcript of the testimony given ; that the deposition of Julius Forsman 
after being so typewritten was read to said witness and by him then and there 
subscribed and attested as being true in all respects and as being the testimony 
given by him ; that at the close of the taking of the testimony of the witnesses 
E. Petellin, Ivan Lahoon, Ivan Derenoff, Gregori Yakanak. and Charles Pajoman 
it was stipulated and agreed by and between James Wickersham, contestant, 
acting by and through his attorney, John Rustgard, and Charles A. Sulzer, con- 
testee, acting by and through his attorney, T. J. Donohoe. that the signatures 
of the last-named witnesses be waived, and when the testimony of said witnesses 
was transcribed it was carefully examined by the attorneys for each of the 
parties to said contest and agreed by said parties to be a true and correct 
transcript of the sworn testimony of each of said witnesses taken at the time 
and place above stated, and it was further agreed that the depositions of said 
witnesses, as hereinbefore set out. should have the same force ;ind eft'ect as if 
they had been read to the witnesses after being transcriljed and then signed and 
attested by each of said witnesses. Said stipulation is hereto attached to the 
deposition of said witnesses. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal 
this 9th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

My commission expires Maj' 19, 1921. 



272 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

DEPOSITIONS OF JOHN TAL'SHWAK AND MAFEEY AGICK. 

Be it remembered that, pursuant to the notice liereuuto annexed and the 
stipulation entered into on the Ttli day of July. 1917. between John Rust^ard. 
the duly and regularly accredited attorney of James Wickersham, contestant, 
and T. J. Donohoe. tlie duly and regularly accredited attorney for Charles A. 
Sulzer, contestee. at the hour of 6 o'clock in the muruing of the Sth day of July, 
1917. at what is known as Malena Fishing Station, a place situated on ]Malena Bay, 
which said Malena B:iy is one of the small bays opening into ShelikofI! Straits, 
aboiit 30 miles from Afognak, Alaska, which place is also situated in the 
third judicial division of the Territory of Alaska, before me, Frank J. Hayes, 
a notary public in and for the said Territory of Alaska, personally appeared 
John Taushwak and Mafrey Agick. witnesses produced on behalf of Charles 
A. Sulzer. the above-named contestee in the above^entitled contest now pending 
before the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Sixty-fifth Con- 
gress, first session. Each of said witnesses were by me first duly sworn to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and were then and 
there examined and interrogated by T. J. Donohoe. attorney for the said 
Cliarles A. Sulzer, contestee, and by John Rustgard, attorney for the said 
James Wickersham, contestant, and said witnesses testified as follows : 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN TAL'SHWAK. 

Direct examination by Mr. Doxohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. John Taushwak. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Afognak. 

Q. Wherabouts in Afognak? — A. In the Aleut village. 

Q. Did you vote at the election held November 7\ 1916, at which said elec- 
tion a Delegate to Congress was voted for? — A. I did. 

Q. For whom did you vote for Delegate to Congress? 

!Mr. RrsTGAED. Mr. Taushwak. you don't have to tell who you voted for. The 
olijection is taken because this witness has a right to keep his own secrets who 
he voted for and. further, he should do so. 

Mr. DoxoHOE. I desire the record to show that counsel for James Wicker- 
sham told him that he need not tell whom he voted for. notwitlistanding the 
fact that the depositions heretofore taken establish the fact that this man 
was an illegal voter at said election. 

A. I voted for Wickersham. 

Q. Who told you to get the boys from the village and take them up to the 
polls and vote for Wickersham? 

Mr. RrsTGAKD. I object, for there is nothing in the record to show that 
anybody told him to get the boys from the village, nor is there anything to 
show that he did get the boys from the village to vote. 

A. I didn't know anything about that : the boys voted for themselves. 

Q. Did you sit in the place where they, were voting? — A. No. 

Q. Did you prepare any of the ballots or mark any of the ballots for the 
Aleut boys of tlie village? — A. They asked me who was Charles A. Sulzer and 
who was James Wickersham. and I told them who, and they marked the ticket 
themselves. 

Q. You helped seven or eight ? — A. Yes ; they couldn't read. 

Q. After they got the tickets from the judges they came to you and asked you 
to show which was Wickersham and which was Sulzer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You showed them where to mark?^ — A. No; I showed tliem which was 
Wickersham and which was Sulzer. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rcstgakd : 

Q. These boys couldn't read the ticket? — A. No : they couldn't read. 

Q. They asked you what name was Wickersham and what name was Sui- 
zer? — A. Yes. Some of them were for Sulzer, and some were for Wickersham. 

Q. You don't know how they voted? — A. No. 

Q. Thev marked their own tickets? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You didn't see how they marked them? — A. Some fellows marked Wicker- 
sham and some Sulzer. 

Redirect examination : 

Q. Who were the fellows that voted for Sulzer? 

Mr. Rustgakd. I object, for this man had no right to give away the secret, ana 
counsel has no right to inquire. Voters are required to be protected from the 
secrecv of the ballot. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 273 

A. I don't remember. 

Q. How old are you?' — A. I am 28 years old. 

Q. Are you married? — A. No. 

Q. Do you speak Russian? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. Afognak. 

Q. Do you speak Aleut? — A. I do. 

Q. Are you a pure-blooded Aleut? — A. I am half Aleut and half Creole. 

Q. Did you pay a poll tax in 1914? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I object ; it is not proper cross-examination and has no bearing 
on the case. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You paid a $4 poll tax?-— A. I did. 

Q. Who sent you the notice to pay it? — A. The judge at Kodiak. 

Q. As far as you know all of the people living in the Aleut village paid the 
poll tax; that is, those of proper age? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I object, as it is not proper cross-examination and has no bear- 
ing on the case. 

A. I don't know. 

Q. Do you know of any other people living in the village who received notice 
to pay poll tax? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I object on grounds stated above. 

A. I don't know who did. Some of the fellows did. 

TESTIMONY OF MAFREY AGICK. 

CECIL R. KING, first duly sworn as an interpreter, and the witnesses were 
thereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. State your name. — A. Mafrey Agick. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Afognak. 

Q. Do you live in the Aleut village of Afognak? — A. I do. 

Q. Do you live in the Afognak village on the 7th day of November, 1916? — 
A. I did.' 

Q. Do you speak the American language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write English? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or Avrite Russian? — A. No. 

Q. Did you vote in Afognak at the election held there on the 7th day of 
November," 1916?— A. Yes. 

Q. Who did you vote for for Delegate to Congress from Alaska? 

Mr. RrsTGAKD. Mr. Interpreter, you may instruct the witness that he does not 
have to answer that question. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. As counsel for Charles A. Sulzer I demand of counsel for 
James Wickersham that he state his reason for advising the witness not to 
answer. 

Mr. RusTGARD. For the reason that the secret of the ballot should not be 
known by counsel for Sulzer or anyone else. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. It is contestee's claim that where it is once established that a 
person has cast an illegal ballot in an election it is proper and relevant to compel 
the witness who has cast the illegal ballot to tell for whom he voted. 

A. He voted for the new man. 

Q. Who took him to the polls? — A. He says everybody went up to the polls 
alone. 

Q. Who marked your liallot? — A. IVIy relative, .lohn Taushwak. 

Q. How do vou know .\ou voted for the new man? — A. The people said so. 

Q. As a matter of fact, don't you know you don't know for whom you voted ? — 
A. I don't know for whom I voted. 

At the close of the testimony of the foregoing witnesses, taken at said Malena 
Fishing Station, on Malena Bay, it was stipulated by and between James 
Vv'ickersham, contestant, actiri">- by and through John Rustgard, his duly and 
accredited attorney, and Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, acting by and through 
T. J. Donohoe, his duly accredited attfirney. (bat tlio signatures to the denosi- 
tions of said John Tanshwnk and M;ifrey A'Jick lie Wi'ived, as the testimony 
was not transcribed and in order that tlie examination of other witnesses might 
be taken, so that the parties could leave Kodiak about the 11th or 12th of .July, 
1917, to go to Seldovia, where further testimony is to be taken, and if they were 
unable to take the boat the 11th or 12th of July they would be delayed at 
13289—17 18 



274 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Kodiak for about 30 clays, and that the testimony taken will be transcribed 
before the notary public whom it is taken, and when so transcribed submitted 
to counsel for each of the parties for correction, if any there be. 

The parties to the above-named contest, acting by and through their respective 
attorneys, hereby agree that the above and foregoing testimony of John Taush- 
wak and Mafrey Agick is a full, true, and correct transcript of the sworn 
testimony of said witnesses taken at the time and place above stated, and they 
further agree that the said depositions shall have the same force and effect as if 
they had been read to the witnesses after being transcribed and the witnesses 
had signed the same. 

John Rl^stgakd, 
Attorney for James Wickershani, Contestant. 

T. J. DONOHOE, 

Attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, Contestee. 

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY. 

I, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly 
commissioned and sworn, residing at Valdez, Alaska, do hereby certify that pur- 
suant to the notice served on Contestant James Wickershani, at Auburn, King 
County, State of Washington, on the 27th day of June, 1917, which said notice 
with proof of service is attached to the deposition of Arthur Lang, and pursuant 
to the stipulation entered into on the 7th day of July, 1917, which said stipulation 
is attached to the depositions of Julius Forsman, E. Petellin, Ivan Alhoon, Ivan 
Derenoff, Gregori Yakanak, and Charles Pajoman, personally appeared before 
me on the 8th day of July, 1917. at the hour of 6 o'clock in the morning at what 
is known as Malena Fishing Station, about 30 miles from Afognak, Alaska, in 
the third judicial division of the Territory of Alaska, John Taushwak and Ma- 
frey Agick, witnesses on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, that each of 
said witnesses were by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, and then and there gave his deposition as hereinbefore 
set forth upon oral interrogatories propounded to each by T. J. Donohoe. at- 
torney for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and upon oral interrogatories pro- 
pounded to each by John Rustgard, attorney for James Wickershani, contestant. 
That upon the close of the testimony of each of the foregoing witnesses it was 
stipulated by and between each of the parties to the above-entitled contest, act- 
ing by and through their respective attorneys, that the signatures of the wit- 
nesses to their respective depositions be waived. That said depositions, after 
being taken in shortliand by me, were typewritten by me, and after being so type- 
written were submitted to and examined by the attorneys for each of the parties 
to the above-entitled contest, and it was then and there stipulated and agreed 
by and between the parties to said contest, acting through their respective at- 
torneys, that the foregoing transcript of the depositions of said witnesses is a 
full, true, and correct transcript of the sworn testimony of said witnesses taken 
at the time and place above stated ; and it was further agreed by said parties 
that said depositions shall have the same force and effect as if they had been 
read to the witnesses after being transcribed and signed and attested by said 
witnesses. Said stipulation is attached to the foregoing depositions. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal 
this 9th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAi,.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Pnblic for Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

STIPULATION. 

Whereas Charles A. Sulzer, the above-named contestee, did on the 27 th day of 
June, 1917, serve upon James Wickershani, contestant, at Seattle, in the State 
of Washington, a notice as required by section 108 of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States of his intention to take certain depositions of witnesses in his 
behalf at the village of Seldovia, in the Territory of Alaska, in the above-entitled 
contest ; and 

Whereas John Rustgard. the duly accredited attorney for the said James 
Wickersham in the matter of taking said depositions, and T. J. Donohoe, the duly 
accredited attorney of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, in the matter of taking said 
depositions, arrived at the village of Seldovia on the 13th day of July, 1917, for 
the purpose of taking said depositions. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE, 275 

Now, therefore, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the said contestant 
and said contestee, acting by and through their respective attorneys, that the 
commencement of the taking of said depositions at the viUage of Seldovia may 
start on the 13th day of July, 1917, at the hour of 11 o'clocli a. m. at the office of 
the United States deputy marshal in the village of Seldovia. 

John Rustgard. 

t. j. donohoe. 

depositions of M. J. DOYLE, ANTON DOLCHAK, SAMUEL MEECUEOFF, GEEGORY FOXY, 
GEEGOEI KALUNGI, JOHN TALENAK, NICK SAKALOFF, SAVERIAN JAKALOFF. 

Be it remembered that pursuant to the notice hereunto annexed and the stipu- 
lation this day entered into between John Rustgard, the duly and regularly 
accredited attorney of James Wickersham, contestant, and T. J. Donohoe, the 
duly and regularly accredited attorney of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, at the 
hour of 11 o'clock in the forenoon on the 13th day of July, 1917, at the town 
of Seldovia. in the third division of the Territory of Alaska, at the office of the 
deputy United States marshal, before me, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in 
and for the Territory of Alaska, personally appeared M. J. Doyle, Anton Dolchak, 
Samuel Mercuroff, Gregory Foxy, Gregori Kalungi, John Talenak, Nick Sakaloff, 
and Saverian Jakaloff, witnesses produced on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, the 
above-named contestee in the contest now pending before tlie House of Represen- 
tatives of the Congi-ess of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session. 
Each of said witnesses were by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, and were then and there examined and inter- 
rogated by T. J. Donohoe, attorney for the said Charles A. Sulzer, and by John 
Rustgard, attorney for the said James Wickersham, and said witnesses testified 
as follovvs : 

TESTIMONY OF M. J. DOYLE. 

Direct examination by T. J. Donohoe: 

Q. What is your name? — A. M. J. Doyle. 

Q. How old are you? — A. Fifty-eight years old. 

Q. You are a citizen of the United States are you not? — ^A. I am. 

Q. Do you reside in the Seldovia voting precinct? — A. I do. 

Q. Did you reside in the said Seldovia voting precinct on the 7th day of 
November, 1916, at which time an election was held for the election of a Dele- 
gate to Congress? — A. I did. 

Q. Were you present at that election? — A. I was. 

Q. How long have you resided in and about Seldovia? — A. A little over two 
years. 

Q. Are you well acquainted with the residents in and about Seldovia, in- 
cluding the natives who reside in this vicinty ? — A. Yes, sir ; I know them all 
quite well, although still there might be many that I do not know. 

Q. I have here the registration book for the November 7, 1916, election which 
was kept at the Seldovia voting precinct and will ask you to examine the names 
on that book for the purpose of determining whether any of the voters that 
appear upon that book were what was commonly termed "Alaska native'^," or 
the people of the aboriginal race of Alaska. (Hands book to witness for inspec- 
tion.) — A. I can see quite a number of them. 

Q. I ask you to carefully go over this list and see how many of the names 
there are the names of parties that are called Alaska natives who voted at the 
election on the 7th day of November, 1916, in the Seldovia voting precinct. 
(Hands witness a list of names.) — ^A. That list covers all of them that I know 
of, at least a great many of them. 

Mr. Donohoe. I now offer in evidence the list of names taken from the regis- 
tration book identified by the witness and ask that it be marked "Exhibit No. 
1 " of Mr. Doyle's deposition, and be made a part of the records of this con- 
test. 

3Ir. RusTGAED. I object to the further examination of this witness for the 
following I'easons: First, there is no allegation in the contestee's answer of 
any particular facts which contestee proposes to prove, there is an allegation 
of fraud but no statement as to what facts constitute the fraud complained 
of, there is an allegation of unlawful voting but no allegation as to what the 
unlawfulness consisted of, there is therefore no allegation giving notice what 
contestee intends to prove, the depositions heretofore taken by contestee show 



276 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

they are pure fishing expeditions conducted with the hope of finding some fraud, 
and this examination is obviously of the same purpose; second, there is no 
allegation in the answer that any particular individual voted unlawfully, nor 
any allegation of any particular act which is claimed to have rendered the voting 
illegal ; third, the notice of depositions was not served upon contestant in time 
to permit him to participate in the examination of witnesses, or even in time 
to give him an opportunity to write me on the subject or to make me copy of 
notice of depositions nor give me the names of the witnesses, but that all 
the time he was given to do was to wire me to board the steamship Evans and 
go with contestee's attorney to cross examine contestee's witnesses. These 
objects are made for the purpose not only of applying them to this witness, but 
to all witnesses hereafter to be examined and also to those who have already 
been examined. 

(Exhibit No. 1 received and marked as requested.) 

Q. Calling your attention to Exhibit No. 1, containing the names of Alaska 
natives who voted at the election November 7, 1916, in the Seldovia voting 
precinct, I will ask you where these people live in reference to the village of 
Seldovia? — A. As near as I knoAV the majority of them live on the hill by 
themselves. 

Q. Do you know whether these Alaska natives, including the ones who ap- 
pear on your Exhibit No. 1, have a chief? — A. I have always understood they 
have a chief. 

Q. What is his name? — A. I understand it is Aneisam. 

Q. Do you know of them having an assistant chief? — A. That is what I 
have always heard since I have been here, that Tim Baleshoff was assistant 
chief. 

Q. Of these 22 names which appear on your Exhibit No. 1, what number 
of them are unable to write their names? — A. There is quite a large number 
of them, probably a majority of them according to the registration book, a 
large number of them had to have theirs signed and their tickets made out for 
them. 

Q. On this registration book there are a number of names in which a cross 
is written; will you state what is meant by that cross? — A. The cross is meant 
for their name. 

Q. By whom was the cross marked ?-^A. It was marked by one of the judges 
of election, and the cross signifies that they are unable to write. « 

Q. And the crosses signifies they are unable to write? — A. Yes. 

Q. Of these 22 n.-imes which ajipenr on Exhilnt No. 1. what do you know about 
their ability to read the English language? — A. As far as I know none of them 
can read it. There are a few that can read and write but a majority can not. 
At least they told me they could not. 

Q. Do you know Mike Dolchok? — A. I do. 

Q. Is he a native? — A. At least I consider him one; he told me he was. 

Q, On December 5, 1916, were you present at the time that Mike Dolchok 
made an affidavit concerning his vote at the election of November 7, 1916? 

Mr. RtTSTGAED. I object to that as immaterial. 

A. I was. 

Q. Where is Mike Dolchok now? — A. The last I know of him he was at Goose 
Bay. 

Q. How far is that from Seldovia?— A. One hundred and sixty miles. 

Q. What is he doing? — A. He was working the last I heard of at the Bush- 
man cannery. 

Q. Mr. Doyle. I hand you a prepared afl^davit dated at Seldovia, Alaska, 
December 5, 1916, signed and sworn to by Mike Dolchok, and will ask you 
if that is the affidavit that was made at the time?— A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We now offer this affidavit in evidence, ask that it be marked 
" Contestee's Exhibit No. 2 " of M. J. Doyle's deposition. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I object to that as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, 
and for the further reason that it is purely an ex parte statement; that the 
contestant is not given an opportunity to be present at the taking of the state- 
ment or an opportunity to cross-examine the witness Dolchok. Moreover, the 
affidavit is one that does not require to be sworn to, and the party who is 
claimed to have made the affidavit could not be prosecuted even if the affidavit 
were false. It is in no sense evidence. 

(Exhibit No. 2 received and marked as requested.) 

Q. Do you know Zakar Conkua? — A. I believe I know him, but am uncertain 
as to that name. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 277 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I hand you a paper styled an affidavit, dated Seldovia, Alaska, 
December 5, 1916, signed by Zalvar Gonkua, and aslc you if you was present when 
the statement was made? — A. I can't just remember just now. 

Q. Do you linow where tlie party is at this time? — A. I do not. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We now offer this paper in evidence and ask tliat it be marked 
" Exhibit No. 3 " of tlie deposition of M. J. Doyle. 

Mr. RusTGARD. I make the same objection to this affidavit as to Exhibit No. 2 
in the former affidavit. 

(Exhibit No. 3 received and marked as requested.) 

Q. Do you know Constantine Lul^o? — A. I do. 

Q. Were you present on the 5th day of December. 1916, when an affidavit was 
made by him concerning the election last November? — A. I was. 

Q. I hand you a paper and I will ask you if that was the affidavit Avhich was 
made? — A. It was. 

Q. Do you know where this man is now? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether he is absent from Seldovia? — A. I can't say. I 
think he is up fishing. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We now offer in evidence the affidavit of Constantine Luko, 
and ask that it be marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 4," of the deposition of 
M. J. Doyle. 

Mr. RusTGABD. I make the same objection to this affidavit as to the former 
affidavits like offered. 

Q. Were you present on the 5th day of December, 1916, when Steve E. Soro- 
kovekoff made a statement regarding his vote on last November? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you the paper styled affidavit dated Seldovia, Alaska, December 5, 
1916, and signed and sworn to by Steve E. Sorokovekoff, and will ask you if that 
is the statement he made in your presence? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know where he is at this time? — A. I do not. He went to Seattle 
from here, I can't say Avhere he is now. 

Q. How long has he been away from Seldovia? — A. I don't know how long; 
he went away with Haddin ; I think it was in the middle of May. 

Q. He hasn't been around here since some time in May? — A. No. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We now offer in evidence this affidavit and ask that it be 
marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 5 " of the deposition of M. J. Doyle. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I object on the same grounds as I objected to the former 
affidavits. 

(Exhibit No. 5 received and marked as requested.) 

Q. Do you know Irene Jacobson? — A. I do. 

Q. Were you present oni the 5th day of December. 1916, when Irene Jacobson 
made an affidavit in regard to her vote at the last November election? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. I hand you herewith a paper marked "Affidavit," dated at Seldovia, 
Alaska, December 5, 1916. signed and sworn to by Irene Jacobson, and will ask 
you if you witnessed that signature? — A. Yes; I was present. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We now offer in evidence this affidavit and ask that it be 
marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 6 " of the deposition of M. J. Doyle. 

Mr. RusTGAED. I make the same objection to this affidavit as to the former 
affidavits introduced. 

(Exhibit No. 6 received and marked as requested.) 

Q. Since the November election have you had conversations with a number 
of the natives who voted at the election whose names appear on Exhibit No. 1 
of your deposition as to whom they voted for for Delegate to Cngress? 

Mr. RtrsTGAED. I object to that as immaterial and irrelevant. ' 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom did they state to you they voted for for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object to that as immaterial and incompetent. It is hearsay 
evidence and statements made when parties were not under oath. The state- 
ments Avere made without giving contestant an opportunity to be present and 
cross-examine the parties who have made the statements. It is further incom- 
petent, for the reason that the voter has a right to keep his own secret for whom 
he voted, and it is therefore incompetent at this time to inquire into or probe 
by oral evidence what candidate each voter cast his vote for. 

A. Wickersham ; all of them. 

Q. Do you know " Shorty" Stoffer? — A. I do. 

Q. Was he present in the Seldovia precinct in the village of Seldovia on elec- 
tion day? — A. He was. 



278 WICKERSHAM VS. STJLZER. 

Q. Had he been present for some time immediately previous to tlie election? — 
A. Yes, sir ; for several months. He was here all the winter before. 

Q. Did you know of him advocating the election of Mr. Wickersham for Dele- 
gate to Congress before election day? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object to the question as immaterial and irrelevant. 

A. I never heard him personally say anything ; all I know is what the natives 
told me. 

Q. State what the natives told you in that regard. 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I object to that as general hearsay and incompetent and im- 
material. 

A. A few natives that I was talking to said Shorty Stoffer came to their house 
and asked them to come to his house before election and he would show them 
how to vote ; that he wanted them to vote for Wickersham. 

Q. Did you have a talk with Mike Dolchok on this subject? — ^A. I did; but 
only a short talk with him. I talked to him a little while in the pool room. He 
voluntarily talked to me about it. 

Mr. RusTGAED. I wish it understood that all this testimony is taken under 
my objections already made. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok tell you that Stoffer had asked him to round up the 
natives so that they would vote on election day ? — A. Yes ; in them words. 

Q. State what he did say. — A. He said Shorty Stoffer asked him to do what 
he could for him ; he said Shorty Stoifer was a friend of his, and he did. 

Q. Do you know where Shorty Stoffer is at this time? — A. He is working at 
the coal mine. 

Q. How far is that from Seldovia? — A. Fourteen or fifteen miles. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rx^stgaed : 

Q. Calling your attention to the registration book you have already referred 
to, you stated that those voters who could not sign their own names that their 
names were signed by one of the judges of election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that not correct? — A. It is correct. 

Q. And those names so signed are further designated by a cross placed be- 
tween the Christian name and the surname; is that correct? — A. Yes, sir; that 
is correct. 

Q. Will you now examine that registration book and state how many names 
you find so designated? — A. Eleven. 

Q. There were 85 ballots cast altogether? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Isn't it a fact that some of those who could not write their name in English 
marked their own ballots? — A. I don't know. I didn't take any particular 
notice. 

Q. Do you know how many of the voters had their ballots max'ked by the 
judges? — A. I couldn't say exactly how many. I know there was quite a few. 

Q. You were at one time a guard in the local jail here, were you not? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Under the direction of Deputy iNIarshal Cameron? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Cameron is now and for some time past has been the United States 
deputy marshal at this place?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were engaged by him as guard at the jail? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time did you commence that employment? — A. I really don't remem- 
ber ; it was some time in December ; around about the 1st of December ; perhaps 
the latter part of November. I don't remember. 

Q. How long after the election did you go to work at the jail? — A. I don't 
remember. It might have been a week and it might have been 10 days after 
election ; I don't fhink so ; I think it was closer to a week. I am not sure ; I 
can't remember. It was a short time after election, but just exactly when I 
can not say. 

Q. Your memory is a little vague on that point? — A. It is. 

Q. Who preceded you as jailer? — A. Mr. Albert Osness. 

Q. Don't yon remember that he quit the day after election? 

Mr. DoxoHOE. We object to this question on the ground that it is not proper 
cross-examination, and on the further ground that it is immaterial and irrele- 
vant and has no bearing on the questions involved in this case. 

A. No, sir ; I don't remember whether he quit or whether he was discharged ; 
I know nothing about it. 

Q. Previous to the election you were actively engaged in supporting Sulzer? — 
A. I was the precinct committeeman. 

Q. At Seldovia? — A. Yes; at Seldovia. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 279 

Q. You were also one of the .iudges of election? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was Sulzer's watchex- at the polls? — A. Mr. Bogart. 

Q. Who selected Mr. Bogart to watch?— A. I believe Mr. Sulzer ; I think 
he told me that Mr. Sulzer asked him to take that part. 

Q. Mr. Bogart, the watcher for Sulzer, is the husband of Mrs. E. R. Bogart? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mrs. Bogart is the lady whose name you have on the list, Exhibit No. 1, 
as an alien, a native, disqualified voter? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Is Mr. Bogart a citizen? — A. He is an American citizen, born in this 
country ; a white man. 

Q. You didn't challenge his wife? — A. We didn't have to challenge her. She 
signed the registry book. 

Q. You are at this time a candidate for game warden, are you not? — A. No; 
not'' exactly a candidate. I would take it if it was given to me. 

Q. You have your application in for the position? — A. I didn't put it in; some 
of my friends are circulating a petition. 

Q. Did you pass around the petition yourself among your friends? — A. No. 

Q. How' long did you serve as jailer? — A. Three days over three months. 

Q- What dal:e did you quit? — A. I can't remember the date. I never paid 
any particular attention. It was some time in April, but I never paid any 
particular attention. 

Q. You were present at the voting place when Mr. Osness voted? — A. I was. 

Q. You were at the ballot box when he put his ballot in the box? — A. I was. 

Q. You had your jackknife out at the time? — A. No; not that I know of. 

Q. You used* your jackknife at that time to shove the ballot down in the 
box? — A. Previously I had. We had a small box belonging to the schoolhouse, 
and it didn't hold the big ballots, and I had to use my knife to shove them down. 

Q. At that time did you punch a hole through Osness's ballot? — A. Not inten- 
tionally. I don't know that I did it. 

Q. You state that the names of these individuals whose names are on this 
Exhibit No. 1 are natives? — A. That is my understanding. 

Q. Don't they call themselves Russians? — A. No; natives. I never heard 
them called Russians? 

Q. Do you know they speak the Russian language? — A. Not that I know of. 

Q. You do not know what they talk? — A. No. 

Q. You don't know whether they are Russians, Indians, or people of mixed 
blood? — A. Only what they tell me themselves. 

Q. Well, you had spoken to Mr. Lowell about it, had you not? — A. No. 

Q. Lowell looks pretty white, does he not? — A. Yes; but we do not classify 
Lowell with the balance of the natives here. 

Q. Does he talk English? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Isn't that the Lowell you have in the list of " Exhibit No. 1 "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is not classed as a native, then? — A. No; not in my estimation as a 
native : that is, he is not a full-blood. 

Q. Has Mrs. J. Cleghorn a husband? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is he?— A. A white man. 

Q. An American citizen? — A. Yes, sir; I am quite sure. 

Q. Has Mrs. Sallie Bowen got a husband? — A. She has. 

Q. Is he a white man? — A. No ; he has breed in him ; I think he is a Russian. 
His mother speaks Russian. 

O. Has Irene Jacobson a husband? — A. I think so ; she has taken the name of 
that man. 

Q. Is he a white man? — A. He is. 

Q. Is he a citizen? — A. I have been trying to find that out myself. He never 
votes ; at least he hasn't since I have been here. 

Q. Do you know Lizzie Block? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is she married to a white man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mrs. Ritchie? — A. I do. 

Q. Is she married to a white man? — A. She is supposed to be married to a 
white man. as she has taken his name. 

Q. Mrs. Cleghorn's husband worked for the United States Government at the 
time of the election? — A. I believe he did. 

Q. Did you mean to say that Mrs. Cleghorn told you that she voted for 
Wickersham? — A. I never said anything of the kind. I never talked with the 
lady on the election. 



280 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. As a matter of fact, you know that when she came into the polling place 
she told j'ou and the other judges of election that her husband told her to vote 
for Sulzer? — ^A. I never heard her remark any such thing. 

Q. Do you know Steve Sorokoff? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you wish to be understood as swearing to the fact that he is an 
Indian; is he a native? — A. I can't define that. 

Q. What do you understand by a native? — A. I am at a loss to find out what 
a native is myself. I have applied to the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Spence. 
and asked him to define them. I got no satisfaction. 

0. This Sorokoff looks like a white man? — A. I don't think so. 

Q. Don't you say there is a large percentage of white blood in liim? — A. No. 

Q. Do you know what language he speaks? — A. I can't say whether it is 
Russian or Indian. 

Q. What does he work at? — A. General labor — anything he can find to do. 

Q. Where is he working at the present time? — A. I can't say; he was in 
Seattle the last I heard of him. 

Q. When did he go thei-e? — A. In the month of INIay of the present year. 

O. Can he read or write? — A. I can't say as to that; I can't remember. 

Q. Did he frequently go to Seattle, as far as you know? — A. No; I think it 
is the first time. He went out as a deck liand on the boat. 

Q. Do yoii know Anton Dolchak? — A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him? — A. A couple of years. 

Q. Do you know whether he speaks Russian, English, or any other lan- 
guage?- — A. He speaks English quite plain, but as to the other languages I 
do not know. 

Q. Do you know his age? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether he reads or writes? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know Samuel Mercuroff? — A. I do. 

Q. How old a man is he? — ^A. About 45 or 50. 

Q. Is he here now? — A. Yes. 

Q. What is his business? — A. He is a general roustaboiit — fishing, logging, 
and general work. 

Q. Is he a man of family ? — A. l"es ; he has a wife and one child, I believe. 

Q. Do you know what Innguase he speaks? — A. No; he speaks some foreign 
Iangu:Tge; can't say whether it is Indinn or Russian. 

Q. Does he spenk any English? — A. No. 

Q. Do yoii know Gregory Foxy? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where is he now? — A. Here in Seldovia. 

O. How old a man is he? — A. I can't say; think about 60. 

Q. What does he work nt? — A. General work, fishing during fishing season, 
and hunting; also logging; any work he can get. 

Q. Do you know Constantino Loko? — A. I do. 

Q. Does he live in Seldovia? — A. He does. 

Q. Is he here fit the present time? — A. I think not. 

Q. Where is he? — A. He is at Baiieloff Bay at the present time. 

Q. How far is that from here? — A. About 7 or 8 miles. 

Q. How long has he been there? — A. I can't say. 

O. On this list. Exhibit No. 1. is it intended that the first nnme appenring on 
the list is the surname and the last name is the Christian name? — A. The first 
name occurs last, until you get down to the bottom. 

Q. Referring to Gregory Kalungi. is he here? — A. I can't say ; I don't know. 

Q. How long since you have seen him? — A. I can't say; it may have been two 
or three months. 

Q. How old a man is he? — A. I can't say ; it is hard to tell their age. 

Q. Have you seen him since election ? — A. Oh, yes ; very frequently on the 
beach. 

Q. What language does he speak? — A. I can't say; it is either Russian or 
Indian. 

Q. What language do you spenk to him? — A. I don't speak to him nt all. 

Q. What language did lie use when he told you that he voted for Wieker- 
shnm? — A. English. He can of course speak a few words of English. 

Q. Do you think he is a pure-blooded Indinn? — A. I can't say. 

Q. He may be pure Russinn, then? — A. Yes; he may be. 

Q. And that is true of all the rest of them on the list? — A. Yes. 

Q. As far as you are concerned, when you speak of the Indians in the village 
you speak about the native population of the town? — A. Yes, sir; I should say 
that is what it consists of. 



i 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 281 

Q. You don't refer to any particular race? — A. No; I don't. 

Q. How large a percentage of the population over the age of 21 years, resid- 
ing at Seldovia, were l)orn here? — A. I should say in my estimation it would 
not be 10 per cent ; there are a great many of the natives who have been born 
here. 

Q. Many of those you class as natives are born on Kodiak Island or on the 
Kodiak Island group, are they not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there a Greek-Russian church in this place? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. As far as you know, all those who are classed as natives attend services in 
that church whenever services are held? — A. The majority of them, I believe, do. 

Q. Do you know George King? — A. I do. 

Q. What is his business? — A. He is a fisherman. 

Q. Do you know where he was born? — A. To the westward, somewhere around 
Unalaska. 

Q. You say at Unalaska? — A. Yes; somewhere around there. 

Q. Do you know what language he speaks? — A. I do not. 

Q. Does he speak English? — A. He does. 

Q. For aught you know, a foreign language which he speaks, if any, is 
Russian? — A. It may be. 

Q. Where does Mrs. King live? — A. In Seldovia. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. To the westward also; they came, here together. 

Q. How long since they came from the westward? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does she read and write English? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Does George King read and write English? — A. I can't say. 

Q. You can not sav whether Mr. or Mrs. King read and write Russian? — A. 
No. 

Q. Do you know Agnes Barnes? — A. I do. 

Q. Where does she live? — A. In Seldovia. 

Q. Her husband is a white man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. I don't know. 

Q. She may also have been born in Unalaska for all you know? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes: she speaks some English. 

Q. Does she read and write the English language? — A. I can't tell. 

Q. If she speaks a foreign languge, may it not be the Russian language? — A. 
It might be. 

Q. Does she read or write Russian? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Where does J\Irs. Ritchie live? — A. In Seldovia. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. I can't say where she was born. I don't know. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does she read and write English? — ^A. She writes some English, but don't 
knew whether she reads much English or not, but it is safe to assume that she 
can read her own writing. I have seen her writing, but never heard her 
reading. 

Q. If she speaks any foreign languge, may it not be Russian? — A. It may be. 

Q. This I presume you wouldn't know? — A. No. 

Q. Do you know whether she reads or writes Russian? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Where is Sallie Bowen living? — A. In Seldovia. 

Q. Where was Sallie Bowen born? — A. I heard she was born to the west- 
ward ; I don't remember just where. 

Q. When you say to the westward you mean Kodiak Island or the Unalaska 
country? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does she read or write English? — A. I can't say as to that. 

Q. Does she read or write any other langiiage? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Does she speak much English? — A. Very little. 

Q. Where was Mrs. Cleghorn born? — A. I can't say; around this country; 
some place in close by here. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Some, but very little. 

Q, Do you know whether she reads or writes English? — ^A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know what foreign language, if any, she speaks? — A. I do not. I 
heard she was a full-blooded Indian. 

Q. Does she not speak Russian? — A. She may. 

Q. Do you know Mrs. Bogard? — A. I do. 

Q. She lives in Seldovia? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. I do not know. 



282 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. She may have been born to the westward around Kodiak Island or 
Unalaska, may she not?^ — -A. Yes. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes; .some. 

Q. Does she read or write English? — A. I can't say as to that. 

Q. Do you know whether she speaks Russian? — A. I couldn't say. I have 
heard her speak some foreign language, but I do not know what it was. 

Q. Where is Irene Jacobson? — A. She lives in Seldovia. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Do you know whether or not she was born to the westward? — A. I think 
she was. 

Q. Does she speak English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does she read or write English? — A. I don't think so. 

Q. The foreign language she speaks may be Russian? — A. It may be; I don't 
know. 

Q. Do you know whether she speaks or writes Riissian? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know where Steve Soroskinoff was born? — A. I believe he was 
born at Kodiak. 

Q. How old a man is he? — A. I should judge he is close to 30. 

Q. Does he speak English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does he write English? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Does he read English? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Do you know whether he signed his own name to the affidavit or not? — 
A. To this affidavit here? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I ask that the affidavit be submitted to the witness. 

A. I don't remember. 

Q. Can you state without making an examination of Exhibit No. 5 whether 
or not Steve Sorosnikoff signed the affidavit personally? — A. I couldn't now, 
even by examining it. 

Q. You have personally no recollection of his signing that affidavit? — A. I 
certainly do not remember it. 

Q. Do you remember where you were at the time you signed your name as a 
witness? — A. I was in this room. 

Q. Who else were present at that time? — A. Marshal Cameron, Mrs. Chris- 
tiansen, the notary public. I believe that is all. I can't remember any more. 

Q. Are you sure Mrs. Christiansen was here then? — A. I am quite sure she 
was here. 

Q. What language does she speak besides English? — A. I can't tell. 

<}. Is she what you call a native? — A. Yes; partly; part Indian and part 
white. 

Q. Where was she born? — A. I don't know. 

Q. She is the postmistress at this place? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long has she held that position? — A; Since her father's death about 
three years ago. 

Q. Did you testify as to where Soroskinoff was at the present time? — A. I 
thought he was in Seattle. 

Q. Where was the affidavit of Constantine Luko signed? — A. In here in this 
room. 

Q. Who were present at the time this affidavit of Constantine Luko's was 
signed?— A. Myself, Marshal Cameron, and I believe Mrs. Christiansen. 

Q. Did Luko sign the affidavit himself? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We object that the affidavit should be submitted to the witness 
for examination before he is required to testify to it. 

A. I can't say. 

Q. Do you know whether Luko can read or write English? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Do you know what foreign language, if any, he speaks? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether he can read or write Russian? — A. I do not. 

Q. Where was the affidavit of Zakar Chonka signed?— A. In this office here. 

~Q. Which was in what is called the office of the deputy United States 
marshal? — A. Yes. 

Q. Who were present at the time that affidavit was signed?— A. The same 
parties. 

Q. Who were they? — A. Myself, Mr. Cameron, the deputy marshal, and Mrs. 
Christianson. 

Q. Was anybody else present? — A. I can't remember. 

Q. Where was Chonka born? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Can he read the English language? — A. I don't think so. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 283 

Q. State whether or not he signed the affidavit in liis own handwriting. — 
A. I can not remember. 

Q. You do not Ivnow what foreign language he spealis? — A. No. 

Q. For aught you l<now it may be Russian? — A. Yes; it may be. 

Q. Do you know whether he can read and write Russian? — A. I do not. 

Q. For ought you Icnow he may be a Russian by descent? — A. Yes ; lie may be. 

Q. Who prepared tliese affidavits? — A. Mr. Cameron. 

Q. Wliere did he prepare them? — A. In this office. 

Q. Were you present at tlie time he prepared them ? — A. No, sir ; I was not. ^ 

Q. Were the affidavits prepared while the notary was here? — A. I th*nk so. 

Q. Were you in the room at the time? — A. I don't remember. Mr. Cameron 
was working on his machine atod sometimes he was here and generally had 
busine.ss out in the jail. I came in here when I was needed. 

Q. Do you know Mike Dolchak? — A. I do. 

Q. Where was he born? — A. I can't say. 

Q. Does he speak English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does he read or write English? — A. I dont' know. 

Q. Does he speak a foreign language? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know whether or not the foreign language he speaks is Rus- 
sian? — A. I can't say whether or not it is. He told me he Avas a native him- 
self, whatever that means. 

Q. Do you know whether he read or writes the Russian language? — A. I do 
not. 

Q. What is his business? — A. Fishing, logging, and general all around work. 

Q. Where is he at the present time? — A. I understood he was up at Goose 
Bay at the cannery. 

Q. How far is that from Anchorage? — A. Ten to twelve miles. 

Q. That is the Bushmann cannery? — A. Yes. 

Q. How old a man is he? — A. Twenty-four or twenty-five years old. ' 

Q. You have a school at this place, do you not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is known as a Territorial school? — A. Yes. 

Q. Seldovia forms a school district? — A. Yes. 

Q. You have an annual election in this school district for the election of 
school directors? — A. Yes. 

Q. You elect three school directors every year? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who are the present school directors? — A. James Cleghorn, Dr. Burgin, 
and Christ Peterson. 

Q. This school director, Cleghorn, is the J. Cleghorn whom we have referred 
to before? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. How many of these school elections have you been present at before? — A. 
Two. 

Q. At those elections, as far as you know, all these whom you class and call 
natives participated in the vote? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. I object on the grounds that it is immaterial and irrelevant ; 
it does not tend to establish any of the issues in this contest, for the reason that 
the same qualifications are not required for electors for a school election as are 
required for electors at the election . of a Delegate to Congress. 

A. To my knowledge, I never knew a native to vote here. 

Q. What is the line you have drawn between qualified voters and unqualified 
voters at the school election? — A. There has been no line drawn that I know of. 

Q. l^ou said something al:)out these people here having a chief. Does the chief 
live up the inlet above here? How far away from here? — A. I can't say ex- 
actly ; perhaps 20 miles. He has a residence in town here. 

Q. How long since he lived in town? — A. He is in town off and on. He is 
living now at Port Graham. 

Q. Who is he working for at Port Graham? — A. The cannery. 

Q. What did you say his name was? — A. Aneisam. 

Q. When was he elected chief? — A. I can't say ; it is only hearsay with me. 

Q. Did he vote at the election? — ^A. No ; he wasn't here. 

Q. Where was he at the time? — A. He was at his residence up in Kachemak- 
Bay. 

Q. How far is that from here? — A. About 20 miles. 

Q. Prior to the election last fall you and Mr. Cameron both distributed sample 
ballots through the village, did you not? — ^A. You say we did ; I say no, it is 
not so. 

Q. Who distributed the Democratic sample ballots? — A. I don't know that any- 
body did. 



284 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. You are aware of the fact that there were a great many of them in the 
town? — A. Yes; they were sent over to me from Seward. I took them out and 
put some in the pool room, where everybody could help themselves. 

Q. Who owned the pool room? — A. Mr. Hart. 

Q. Mr. James Hart? — A. Yes; Mr. .James Hart. 

Q. After the election Mr. Hart was elevated to the position of jailer? 

Mr. DoNOHOE. We object to the word " elevated." 

A. Yes ; a long time after election. 

Q. He is jailer now? — A. I believe he is. I don't know for a certainty. 

Q. Yctt have lived here in the village of Seldovia for some time? — A. Right 
outside of the village on a homestead. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe: 
Q. What is your business? — A. Fishing, ranching — a little bit of everything. 
Q. You have taken up a homestead, have you not?^ — A. I have. 
Q. And you are living there? — A. Yes. 
Q. You have made that your permanent home? — A. Yes, sir. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Rxjstgaed : 

I offer in evidence the registration book which has been referred to in the 
examination. 

Mr. Donohoe. That registration book is a court record. I have no objection 
to having a certified copy of it being made and introduced in evidence, but I 
secured the withdrawal of that from the court records temporarily so that it 
might be used in the course of these examinations covering the signatures ap- 
pearing on that book, and unless the clerk of the court will consent to it being 
offered in evidence and the withdrawal of it from the files, I can not consent to 
its use for that purpose. I have no objection to a certified copy being made. 

M. J. Doyle. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Frank ,T. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTON DOLCHAK. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Anton Dolchak. 

Q. Are you a brother of Mike Dolchak? — A. I am. 

Q. Where is Mike now? — A. Goose Bay. 

Q. How far is that from here? — A. One hundred and fifty miles. 

Q. Were you in Seldovia on the 7th day of November, 1916, at which time 
an election was held? — A. I was. 

Q. Did you vote at that election? — A. I did. 

Q. Were you at Shorty Stoffer's cabin before you voted? — A. I was. 

Q. How came you to go to Shorty Stoffer's cabin on the morning of elec- 
tion? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I make same objection similar to objection I made at be- 
ginning of testimony of M. .J. Doyle. 

A. The fellows told me to go down there and he would show me how to vote 
for AVickersham. 

Q. You, then, were down at Shorty Stoffer's cabin?— A. Yes. 

Q. What did Shorty do? — A. He showed me how to vote for Wickersham. 

Q. Did he give you anything at the time — I mean any coffee and cake? — A. 
Yes ; he gave me coffee and cake. 

Q. Where did you go after you left the polls? — A. I went back to Shorty 
Stoffer's cabin and had some more coffee and cake. 

Q. Did Shorty tell you to come back? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did he give you anything else but coffee and cake? — A. No. 

Q. Did he give you any money? — A. No. 

Q. And you went up and voted for Wickersham? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you born? — A, Seldovia. 

Q. How old are you? — A. Twellty-t^^'0 years old. 

Q. You are a native, ai-e you not? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you live in the native end of the village? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did your brother, Mike Dolchok, come up and tell the boys in the native 
village to come down and vote on election day? — ^A. Yes. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 285 

Q. And you first went down to Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Yes. 
Q. Can you read and write Engiisli? — A. Yes; I can read and write a 
little. 

Q. Can you sign your name in English? — A. Yes. 

Q. Can you write more than just sign your name? — A. Oh, yes. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 
Q. What language do you speak, aside from English? — A. Native and Russian. 
Q. Whicli native language do you speak, Aleut? — A. I do not speak Aleut. 
Q. Do you read and write Russian? — A. No. 

Q. You are baptized in the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. All the Russians and natives here belong to that church? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did Mr. Cameron here speak to you about voting at Seldovia before 
election? — A. No. 

Q. Did you get a sample ballot? — A. No. 

Q. Did you receive a yellow ballot before election? — A. No. 

Q. Is your father and mother living? — A. No. 

Q. Were your father or mother either of them full-blood natives? — A. Both 
were full-blooded natives. 

Q. You have gone to school here? — A. I was in school for one year here. 

Q. Whereabouts do you live? — A. Upon the hill. 

Q. Who lives next to you? — A. My brother. 

Q. He has a home of his own? — A. Yes. 

Q. You have your own home? — A. Yes. 

Q. Are you married? — A. No. 

Q. Who lives with you? — A. I live with four brothers in one house. 

Q. Your brother Mike lives on one side of you? — A. Yes. 

Q. Who lives on the other side? — A. Matfrey Dolchok. 

Q. How far is that from this house here? — A. It is on the other side of the 
church. 

Q. What do you work at? — A. Fishing and logging? 

Q. Your brother works at the same? — A. Yes. 

Q. Who takes care of the church? — A. John Talenak. 

Q. Does he live here? — A. He does. 

Q. All of the time? — A. Yes. He is not in town just now; he is up the bay 
fishing. 

Q. You heard the testimony of M. J. Doyle, did you not? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. What was the name of this man whom Doyle said was chief ? — A. Aneisam. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. Kachemak Bay. 

Q. He has a homestead there, has he not? — A. Yes. ' 

Q. He is farming up there?— A. Yes. 

Q. He has cattle and pigs? — A. I believe so. 

Q. Chickens?— A. Yes. 

Q. Ducks? — A. I don't know. 

Q. He is an assistant priest, is he not?' — A. No. 

Q. Who is the assistant priest? — A. John Talenak. 

Q. Does Anesiam have anything to do with the church? — A. No. 

Q. Has he anything to do with you? — A. No. 

Q. Was he ever elected chief? — ^A. No. 

Q. Has he any authority over the natives here? I mean also has he anythlng^ 
to do with the natives here? — A. Oh, yes, maybe. 

Q. Has he a right to tell the natives what to do and what not to do? — 
A. Yes ; he tells them sometimes. 

Q. That is. in regard to the church? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does he speak Russian? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does he read and write Russian? — A. I don't know about that. 

Q. Do you know where you were born? — A. No. 

Q. Does he read and write English? — A. I don't know. 

Q. When you went down to Stoifer's you wanted to learn how to vote, did 
you not? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you went there to get instructions? — A. Yes. 

Q. And he showed you how to mark your ballot? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you marked your own ballot? — A. Yes. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 
Q. Shorty Stoffer told you to vote for Wickersham, did he not? — A. Yes. 



286 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

TESTIMONY OF SAVARIAN JAKALOFF. 

Mi's. Annie Chbistianson. first duly sworn as interpreter, and the witness 
was tliereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. Savarian Jalvalotf. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Do you live in that portion of the village of Seldovia commonly known as 
the native portion of the town? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you reside here on the 7th day of November, 1916, at which time an 
election for a Delegate to Congress was held? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did vou vote at the said election held at Seldovia on the 7th day of 
November," 1916?— A. Yes; I did. 

Q. Do you know Shorty StofEer?— A. Yes. 

Q. Were you at Shorty StofCer's cabin on the morning of election before you 
voted? — A. Yes. 

Q. Can you read or write the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Can you speak the English language? — A. Yes; I can speak a little. 

Q. When you went to Shorty Stoffer's cabin the morning of election did you 
have any coffee and cake there? — A. Yes. 

Q. How came you to go to Shorty Stoffer's cabin the morning of election? — 
A. I was going down town, and Mike Dolchok asked me to go down there. 

Q. And you went down to Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you went down there, did Shorty Stoffer say anything to you about 
voting? — A. Shorty didn't say anything to me — just gave me a piece of paper. 

Q. What did he tell you to do with the paper? — A. No; Mike Dolchok gave 
me the paper. 

Q. Did he show you where to vote? 

Mr. Rustgakd. I make the same objection as before at the beginning of Mr. 
Doyle's testimony. 

A. Y'^es. 

Q. Did he tell you who to vote for for Delegate to Congress? — A. I knew 
who I voted for. 

Q. Did you vote for James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? — A. Yes. 

Mr. RusTGARD. I ask the interpreter to inform the witness that he does not 
have to answer that question. 

A. I don't want to answer. 

Mr. Donohoe. Counsel for contestee at this time makes the statement that 
the evidence taken in this hearing establishes the fact that this witness was 
an illegal voter, and counsel for James Wickersham, knowing that fact, has 
assumed the authority to instruct this witness that he need not answer whom 
he voted for. However, before counsel for Wickersham had so instructed this 
witness he had already stated in response to question of myself. " Did you vote 
for James Wickersham?" he answered " Yes," and after counsel for Wicker- 
sham instructed him that he need not answer he then stated that he did not 
care to state who he voted for for Delegate to Congress. 

Q. Are you a native? — A. Yes. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I don't know. I am over 40 years old. 

Q. Who marked "your ballot you voted? — A. I did myself. 

Q. Who showed you where to mark it? — A. Mike Dolchok. 

Q. Did you mark it on the third line from the top of the l>allot? 

Mr. RusTGARD. I make the same objections as to the other and ask the 
interpreter to inform the witness that he don't hove to answer the question. 

Mr. Donohoe. If witness refuses to answer a legal question he is subject 
to a fine of .$25. The interpreter may so inform the witness on this point. 

A. I will never go and vote again. 

Q. Has anybody spoken to you to-day about -the testimony you are to give 
at this hearing? — A. No. 

Q. Did you vote for Lena ?Jorrow T.ewis for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RUSTGARD. I again make the same objection and ask the intei'preter to 
instruct the witness that he does not have to answer. 

A. (No ansM-er.) 

Q. Did you vote a,t the November 7, 1016, election for James Wickersham 
for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGARu. I ask that the interpreter inform the witness that he does 
not have to tell for whom he voted. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 287 

A. He saySi lie is afraid they will make it bad for him if he don't tell who 
he voted for. 

Q. Did you vote for James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress at the 
election held November 7, 1916? — A. Yes. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgakd: 

Q. Where were you born? — A. English Bay. 

Q. Where is that? — A. Down below here. 

Q. Do you speak Russian? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been speaking Russian to the interpreter? — A. Yes. 

Q. You are speaking Russian now, when you are testifying? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you read or write Russian? — A. No. 

Q. How long have you been living at Seldovia? — A. I don't remember. I 
was a very small boy when I came here. 

Q. Is your father and mother living"? — A. No; they are both dead. I have no 
relations, either mother, father, sister, or brother. 

Q. Were you baptized in the Russian-Greek Church when an infant? — A. 
Yes. 

Q. You are a regular communicant of the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Your father and mother were communicants of the Greek-Russian 
Church?— A. Yes. 

Q. Your forefathers, as far as you liave heard of, for a century or moi-e, were 
communicants of that church ?^ — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you a home of your own in Seldovia? — A. No. 

Q. W^ho do you live with"? — A. Audrey Tauchak. 

Q. Is Andrew married? — A. He is a widower. 

Q. What do you do?— A. I am working at the cannery now. 

Q. You marked your own ballot v\-hen you voted at election? — A. I did it 
myself. 

Q. You said that on election day you got coffee and cake at the house of 
Shorty Stoffer?— A. Yes. 

Q. Is that the first time you had coffee and cake there? — Yes; just the one 
time. 

Q. Don't the natives always treat each other to coffee aud cake when they 
visit each other? — A. Yes; that is the custom. 

Q. Do you remember who were the judges of election? — A. Yes. 

Q. When you went in to vote did the judges of election give you a ballot or 
piece of paper to vote? — A. Yes ; they gave me a piece of paper. 

Q. And that is the paper you voted? — A. Yes. They gave me the paper to 
mark, and I marked it. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 
Q. Shorty Stoffer is not a native, is he? — A. No ; he is a white man. 
Q. Y'ou never had visited Shorty Stoffer's house before election day, had 
you? — A. No. 

Q. Did you go back to Shorty Stoffer's house after you voted? — A. No. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY FOXY. 

MRS. ANNIE CHRISTIANSON, first duly sworn as interpreter, and the wit- 
ness was thereupon interpreted through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. What is your name? — A. Gregory Foxy. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. In Seldovia. However. I am up the bay putting 
up fish now. 

Q. Did you live fit Seldovia on the 7th day of November, 1916, when an elec- 
tion was held for the election of a Delegate to Congress? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Do you live in that portion of the villege of Seldovia known as the native 
portion ot the village? — A. I live up on the hill away from everybody else. I 
don't live among the natives. 

Q. Do you read or write the English language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write the Russian language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write any other language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you speak the English language? — A. Some; I understand very little. 

Q. Did' you on the morning of the election of the 7th day of November, 1916, 
go to Shorty Stoffer's cabin?— A. Yes. 



288 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Q. Who told you to go up there? — A. Mike Dolchok. 

Q. What did Mike Dolchok tell you to do? — A. He told me I must come up 
here to the election and vote. 

Q. Are you a native? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I enter the same objection which I have entered at the begin- 
ning of Mr. Doyle's testimony. 

A. Yes. 

Q. What did you do on the morning of election when you reached Shorty 
Stoffer's cabin?— A. I didn't do anything. 

Q. Did you have coifee and cake at Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Yes. 

Q. What did Shorty Stoffer say to you about voting? — A. He told me to have 
some coffee. 

Q. Did he show you how to vote and who to vote for? — A. No; Mike Dolchok 
showed me. 

Q. What did Mike Dolchok tell you about who to vote for? — A. He told me 
to put in ballot like he marked. 

Q. Did he tell you to vote for Wickersham? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object to that as immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Counsel for contestee makes the statement that this witness 
is unable to understand the English language, and that, therefore, it is neces- 
sary to put direct questions to him. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote that day? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok go with you to the polls, where they were voting? — A. 
Yes ; Mike went with me over there. 

Q. Did Mike mark your ballot? — A. Mike showed me where to vote. 

Q. Did you vote for .James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGAKD. I n ake the same objections to this question as to former ques- 
tions, and ask the interpreter to inform the witness and instruct him that he 
does not have to answer the question or to tell anybody for whom he voted. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. You will explain to the witness through intei-pretation that this 
is the attorney for James Wickersham, the contestant, who is instructing him 
not to answer, and you will also tell him that unless he answers a legal question 
he is subject to a fine of $25. 

Q. I again repeat, did you vote for James Wickersham for Delegate to Con- 
gress? — A. Yes. 

Q. What did Mike Dolchok tell you on the morning of election about getting 
all the boys in the native village to vote for Wickersham? — A. He asked them 
to come down there aud vote. 

Q. How many of the natives from the village did Mike get to go to Shorty 
Stolfer's cabin the morning of election? — A. I don't know. 

Q. After you voted did you go back to Shorty's cabin that day? — A. No; I 
was only there once. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 

Q. When you went to the voting place to vote, you got the ticket that you 
voted from the judges? — A. Yes; I got a paper from them there. 

Q. That was a white paper, was it not? — A. Yes. 

Q, It had the names printed on it? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you mark that ballot yourself? — A. Yes. 

Q. Mike was with you to the polls? — A. Yes, sir; he was there. 

Q. Down at Shorty Stoffer's Mike had a yellow paper, did he not ? — A. Y'^es. 

Q. And he showed you how to vote? — A. Y'es. 

Q. He told you at that time you would get a white paper from the judges of 
election to vote? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you have in your pocket a copy of that yellow paper which you used 
down at Shorty Stoffer's \yhen you learned how to vote? — A. Yes, sir; I had one 
with me. 

Q. Who were the judges of election? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. When you came into the place where you voted, the judges of election gave 
you a white paper, like the yellow one you had in your pocl^et? — A. Yes. 

Q. And then you \\-ent into the voting booth and pulled out tlie yellow paper and 
marked the white one accordingly? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mike was with you then and saw you do that? — A. No. 

Q. Mike didn't see that white paper after you marked it? — A. No; he never 
.saw it. 



WIOKEKSHAM VS. SULZEK. 289 

Q. And you then gave the white paper to the judges, who put it in the box? — A. 
I put it in myself. 

Q. Where were. you born? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Are you a Russian? — A. No; I am a Kenai. 

Q. Is that different from an Aleut? — A. Yes; it is a different race. 

Q. The Kenais speak a dilferent language from the Aleuts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you speak Russian? — A. A little. 

Q. Are you speaking Russian now when you are testifying? — A. I am. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I think I am 50 years old. 

Q. Were you baptized in the Greek-Russian Church when an infant? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You are a regular communicant of the Greek-Russian Church now? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Were your parents also regular communicants of the Russian-Creek 
Church? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And your ancestors as far back as 100 years were regular communicants of 
the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have a Greek-Russian Church here at Seldovia? — A. Yes. 

Q. The services in that church are conducted in the Russian language, are 
they not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What do you work at? — A. Principally fishing. 

Q. Do you work at anything else? — A. Anything 1 can find to do, logging or 
anything else. 

Q. Have you a family? — A. I have a wife and son. 

Q. You have a home of your own here in Seldovia? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you raise vegetables? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any cattle? — A. No. 

Q. Any chickens ?^A. No. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. Do you know anyone else you voted for besides James Wickersham? — 
A. No. 

Q. You do not know for whom j'ou voted for attorney general — A. No. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM MERCUROFF. 

MRS. ANNIE CHRISTIANSON was first duly sworn as interpreter, and the 
witness was thereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. Sam Marcurotf. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I don't know how old I am. 

Q. Are you a native? — A. I am. 

Q. What tribe do you belong to? — A. I am a Kenai. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Were you in Seldovia on the 7th day of November last when an election 
was held for the election of a Delegate to Congress from Alaska? — A. Yes; 
I was here. 

Q. Do you live in that part of the village of Seldovia known as the " native 
village " ? — A. I don't know what they call it ; I live here in Seldovia. 

Q. Do you live close to the church? — A. No. 

Q. Whereabouts? — A. Right up on the hill. 

Q. Did you vote at the election held November 7th, 1916? — A. I did. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok come to you on the morning of election and tell you to 
go down to Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. l^es, sir. 

Q. Did you see Shorty Stoffer when you got down to the cabin? — A. He was 
home. 

Q. Did Shorty Stoffer give you some coffee and cake before you went up to 
vote? — A. I had two little cookies and a cup of coffee. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok or Shorty Stoffer tell you who to vote for for Delegate 
to Congress ? . 

Mr. RusTGARD. I make the same objection as I did at the beginning of Mr. 
Doyle's testimony. 

A. Shorty Stoffer never said anything to me? 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok tell you how to vote?— A. Yes. 
132S9— 17 19 



290 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Who did he tell you to vote for? — A. Mike Dolchok i^nve me a piece of 
paper and told me to vote it the way it was marked. 

Q. Did Mike go with you to the polls? — A. No ; I went alone. 

Q. Did you vote for James Wickershnm for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. Rtjstgaed. I make the same objections to this as I have made to former 
questions, and I also instruct the interpreter to inform the witness that he 
does not have to answer. 

Mr. DoNOHOE. Interpreter, explain the question and that this is the attorney 
for James Wicker sham, the contestant, who is instructing him not to answer, 
and you will also tell him tliat unless he answers a legal question he is subject 
to a fine of $25. 

A. When I came down to the voting precinct they gave me a white piece of 
paper and it was marked like the yellow one. 

Q. You don't know, then, who you voted for? — A. No; I couldn't read the 
paper. 

Q. You don't know the names of anyone whom you voted for on that ticket? — 
A. No. 

Q. Mike gave you a yellow piece of paper down at Shorty Stoffer's cabin and 
told yoii to mark the ticket you got from the judges in the same way? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you didn't know at the time whom you voted for? — A. No. 

O. You mean vou don^t know the name of a single person you voted for? — 
A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write the English language? — A. No. 

O. Do you read or write the Russian language? — A. No. 

O. Do you read or write any language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you speak the English language? — A. No ; I don't. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgard : 

O. Where were you born? — A. Seldovia. 

O. Are your parents, or either of them, living? — A. No; they have been dead 
a long time. 

Q. Were both of your parents Kenais? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Do you speak the Russian language? — A. Yes; I luiderstand a great 
denl of it. 

Q. What language are yoii speaking now when you are testifying? — A. Rus- 
sian. 

Q. Don't you snepk Eu'rlish also? — A. No. 

Q. You speak some English, don't you? — A. Yes; a few words which are eosy. 
I can not hold a conversation. 

Q. Were you baptized in the Greek Russian Church when an infant? — 
A. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Q. You have been a regular communicant of the Greek Russian Church 
ever since? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Your parents, ns far as vou know, were bnptized in the Greek Russian 
Church when they were infants? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And your ancestors, as far bock as 100 years or more, were baptized 
in the Greek Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. What do you work at? — A. I work some in the cannery, fishing, and 
whatever I can get to do. 

O. Yo\i are a carpenter, are you not? — A. Yes; I can put up a small building. 

Q. Do you have a garden and raise some vegetables? — A. Yes, sir. I laave 
a small garden. 

Q. Do you have any cattle? — A. No. 

Q. Do you have any chickens? — A. No. 

Q. Hnve you a family? — A. Yes; I have a wife and three children. 

Q. How long have you been married? — A. About 13 years; tliat is, to my 
second wife. I have one son by her. 

Q. How long did you and your first wife live together? — A. Fourteen years. 

Q. Your family are commiinicants of the Greek Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. Who sent for you to come up here to-day and testify — A. I was down at 
Antone's store, and a man that lived across the store told me to come up. 

Q. Mr. Doyle was the man who told you to come up? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Doyle ever ask you whom yovi voted for? — A. No. 

Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Doyle who you voted for? — A. No. 

Q. Did Doyle tell you to vote for anybody at the election? — ^A. No. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 291 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN TALENAK. 

MRS. ANNIE CHRISTIANSON first duly sworn as interpreter, and the 
witness was tliereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. What is your name? — A. Jolm Talenak. 

Q. State how old you are. — -A. I am 38 years old. 

Q. Do you read or write the English language? — A. I can write some. 

Q. Do you read or write the Russian language? — A. Yes; when I preach in 
the church I have to use it. 

Q. Do you speak the English language? — A. No; I can't speak English. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Did you live in Seldovia on the 7th day of November, 1916, at which time 
a Delegate to Congress was voted for? — ^A. I did. 

Q. Did you live in that portion of the village of Seldovia commonly known 
as the " native village " ? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you an Alaska native? — A. I am. 

Q. What is the name of your tribe of people? — A. Kenais. 

Q. Did you vote at the election held on the 7th day of last November, 1916? — 
A. I did. 

Q. Were you down to Shorty StofCer's cabin before you voted on election 
day? — A. Yes; I was down there first. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok ask you to go down to Shorty Stoffer's before you 
voted? — A. Yes; he asked me to go. 

Q. And Shorty Stoffer gave you coffee and cake when you went down there 
on the morning of election before you voted? — A. He just gave me a cup of 
coffee but he didn't say anything., 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok say anything to you as to whom you should vote for 
for Delegate to Congress? — A. He told me how to mark my paper and where 
to mark. 

Q. Did you afterwards go up to the voting place and vote? — A. Yes, sir; I 
went right up from Shorty Stoffer's place. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok go with you to the voting place? — A. No. 

Q. Did Mikfr Dolchok give you a ballot with the places marked where to 
vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you mark your ballot the same as Mike had told you to? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote for James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object on same grounds as made to previous objections and 
ask the interpreter to instruct the witness that he does not have to tell for 
whom he voted. 

A. I don't know. 

Q. Do you know the name of anybody else on that ticket you voted for? — A. 
I remember just Wickersham. I don't know the others. 

Q. After you voted did you go back to Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. I took the 
piece of pnner back to him. 

Q. Did Shorty tell vou to come back? — A. No; he did not tell me to come 
back. 

Q. Did Shorty give you some cake and coffee after you came back? — A. No. 
Shorty never said anything. 

Q. The ballot you brought back was the one Mike Dolchok gave you. — A. 
It was. 

Cross-examination by IMr. Rtjstgard : 

Q. Shorty never said anything to you at any time did he? — A. No. 

Q. Y'ou went there because you wanted to learn to mark the ballot? — A. Mike 
Dolchok asked me to come over. 

Q. What did you go there for? — A. Mike asked me to come to Shorty's cabin; 
he never told me what for. 

Q. When vou ci\me over there he showed vou how to mark vour ballot? — A. 
Yes. 

Q. Before that date did you know how to mark your ballot? — A. I didu't 
know a thing about it. 

Q. You wanted to learn, didn't you? — A. I didn't know a thing about it. 
Mike asked me over to cabin and said he would show me how to mark it. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I am 38 years old. 



292 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Have you a wife and children? — A. I did luave but tliey are all dead. 

Q. Where were yon born? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Do you speak the Aleut language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you speak Russian? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. You are speaking Russian now when you are testifying? — A. Yes. 

Q. You are assistant to the priest of the Greek Catholic Church at this 
place? — A. I am. 

0. You read the services in the church? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have you been assistant priest here? — A. For many years. I 
was a small boy when I started helping in church work. 

Q. Are both your parents dead? — A. Yes. 

Q. How long have they been dead? — A. I was a little boy when I lost my 
father, but my mother has not been dead a very long time. 

Q. Were your father and mother full-blooded Kenais? — A. Yes. 

Q. Were they born here at Seldovia? — A. Yes. 

Q. Your parents were communicants of the Greek Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. And your forefathers as far back as a century or more were regular com- 
municants of the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. How far from this house do you live? — A. Only a short ways from here 
up over on the hill. 

Q. Do you know where Mr. Anderson, who keeps the store, lives? — A. Yes. 

Q. Does he live close to where you live? — A. No ; he lives the other side of me. 

Q. Anderson lives further up the hill? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You live between Anderson's place and this place? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Anderson has a family, has he not? — A. Yes; he has a wife. 

Q. Both he and his wife are white people? — A. Yes. 

Q. It is close to the post office you live? — A. Yes; it is close to the post ofBce. 
Mrs. Christianson lives below Anderson's house. Natives live close to each other 
in that part of the town. There are white people living around them. 

Q. Do you raise any vegetables? — A. No. 

Q. Do you raise any cows? — A. No. 

Q. Do you raise any chickens? — A. No. 

Q. What do you do; what do you work at? — A. I officiate in church and 
then work now and then when I have a chance. I have no garden, for I am 
all alone. I have no family. 

Q. When you work what kind of work do you follow? — A. I fish and work in 
the cannery ; also work at logging. 

Q. All the natives at this place are regular communicants of that Greek- 
Russian Church are they not? — A. Yes; they all belong to the Greek-Russian 
Church. 

Q. There has been some testimony here by IMike Doyle that the Indians have 
a chief. Do the Indians have a chief? — A. They haven't a chief. Since Aneisam 
move oxit of town there has been no chief. 

Q. How long since he moved out of town? — A. About six years ago. 

Q. When was Aneisam elected chief? — A. I can't remember. 

Q. Wlien he was chief here at Seldovia did he have any authority to make any 
laws for the people? — A. He may. but they didn't obey him. 

Q. Was his business to help look after the church and the public welfare of 
the"^ community ?— A. The chief had nothing to do with the church business. 

O. The cliief didn't try to exercise any authority over the natives, did he? — 
A. No. 

Q. The natives at this place were trying to live up to the la\ys of the country, 
were they not? — A. Yes, sir; that is what they wanted to do. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGOEI KALXJNGI. 

INlRS. ANNIE CHRISTIANSON first duly sworn as interpreter, and the wit- 
ness was thereupon interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe : 

Q. State your name. — A. Gregori Kalungi. 

Q. How old are you? — A. I am -56 years old. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Did you live in Seldovia on the 7th day of November, 1916, on the day of 
election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you live in that portion of the village of Seldovia known as the 
" native village " ? — A. Yes, sir. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 293 

Q. Are you an Alaska native? — A. Certainly; I am a Kenai. 

Q. Your tribe of people are called " Kenais " ?— ^A. Certainly. 

Q. Do you read or write the English language? — ^A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write the Russian language? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write any language? — A. If I can't read or write the 
Englisli or Russian language, then what other language is there left for me to 
read or write? 

Q. Do you speak the English language? — A. No; I understand a few words 
of it. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok on election day last November tell you to come down to 
Shorty Stoffer's cabin?— A. Yes. 

Q. Did you go down there? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you see Shorty StofCer there? — I did. He came in and poured out a 
cup of coffee. 

Q. Did he give you coffee and cake? — A. I'es. 

Q. Did he say anything about how you should vote? — A. No. 

Q. Did Mike Dolchok say anything to you about voting? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did he give you a paper with marks on it to show vou how to vote? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. Did he tell you to go to the voting place and mark the paper you would 
get there the same as he gave you ? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I make the same objectiorl to this witness as I did to the other 
witnesses heretofore. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did Blike go with you up to the voting place? — A. No. 

Q. Did you vote on election day? — A. I did. 
' Q. Did you mark the paper the judges of election gave you the same as the 
paper was marked that Mike gave you? — A. Yes; I marked it the same. 

Q. Did you vote for .James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. RusTGAED. I object on the same grounds as heretofore, and ask the in- 
tei'preter to instruct the witness that he does not have to answer. 

A. I just marked the paper as it was given to me. 

Q. Do you knovr the name of anyone you voted for on that ticket? — A. No. 

Q. Did Mike say anything to you about voting for Wickersham? — A. No. 

Q. Did Mike tell you to vote for the third name from the top of the ticket? — 
A. No ; he didn't say anything. 

Q. Then you marked the ticket you voted just the same as the ticket that 
Mike gave you ? — A. Yes ; I put crosses on it like the other one. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rtjstgaed : 

Q. Where were you born? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Are your parents still living? — A. Yes; for many years. 

Q. Did your father or mother ever tell you where you were born ? — A. No. 

Q. Do you know where your father or mother were born? — A. No. 

Q. Have you lived anywhere else except here at Seldovia? — A. I have been 
knocking around a good deal, going from one place to another until after I was 
married, when I settled down here at Seldovia about 25 years ago. 

Q. Have you a wife and children now? — A. Yes. 

Q. How many children have you? — A. Two children. 

Q. Where you now live there are white people or people of mixed blood living 
all around you ? — A. Yes ; I live close to the post office. 

Q. Do you speak the Russian language? — A. Y^es. 

Q. You are speaking in the Russian language now when you are testifying? — • 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You attend the services in the church here? — A. Yes. 

Q. And you are a regular communicant of the Greek-Russian Church? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were probably baptized in the Greek-Russian Church when an 
infant?— A. Yes. 

Q. And your parents were probably communicants of the Greek-Russian 
Church?— A. Yes. 

Q. And your forefathers were communicants of the Greek Russian Church 
as far bade as a century or more? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you own your own home here? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. Do you raise vegetables? — A. No. 

Q. Have you any cows? — ^A. No. 



294 WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Do you raise chickens? — ^A. No. 

Q. What do you work at?— A. I liave plenty of work. I hunt and don't get 
anything. I work at logging, fishing, and work at the cannery. 

TESTIMONY OF NICK SAKALOFF. 

Mrs. ANNIE CHRISTIANSON, first duly sworn as interpreter, and the 
witness was thereupon duly interrogated through said interpreter. 

Direct examination by Mr. Donohoe: 

Q. What is your name? — A. Nick Sakaloff. 

Q. What is your age? — A. I am 25 years old. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. With my uncle, Gregori Kalungi. 

Mr. RusTGAED. I make the same objection as I made at the beginning of the 
testimony of M. J. Doyle. 

Q. You live in the native portion of the village of Seldovia? — A. I don't know 
what part of the town it is I live in. 

Q. You lived in the town of Seldovia on the 7th day of last November, the 
day of election, did you not? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you read or write English? — A. No. 

Q. Do you read or write Russian? — A. No. 

Q. Do you speak English? — A. No. 

Q. Did you not on the morning of election, the 7th day November, 1916, go to 
Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Yes. 

Q. Who told you to go to Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Mike Dolchok. 

Q. Did you have some coffee and cake at Shorty Stoffer's cabin? — A. Yes. 

Q. Shorty gave you the coffee and cake?— A. No ; Mike did. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Shorty Stoffer?— A. No. 

Q. Was Shorty there?— A. Yes. 

Q. Did Mike tell you anything about voting? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did he tell you to vote for James Wickersham? — A. No. 

Q. Are you an Alaska native? — -A. I am. 

Q. What is the name of your tribe? — A. Kenais. My father was a Russian. 

Q. Did Mike give you a ticket? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did he show you the marks on the ticket of the names of the men for 
whom you were to vote? — A. Yes. 

Q. What did he tell you to do when you went up to the voting place? Did he 
tell you to make a cross on the ticket which the judges would give you the 
same as the one he gave you? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you make crosses on the ticket you voted just the same as on ticket 
Mike gave you? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote for James Wickersham for Delegate to Congress? — A. I 
don't know. 

Q. Do vou know the names of anyone on the ticket that you voted for? — 
A. No. 

Q. Do you know how many crosses you made on the ticket you voted? — 
A. No. 

Q. Do you remember that you made a cross on the ticket opposite the third 
name from the top? — A. I don't remember. 

Q. After you marked your ticket the same as the ticket Mike gave you was 
marked did you take the ballot in and put it in the ballot box? — A. I took the 
ticket up myself and gave it to Albert and he put it in the ballot box for me? 

Q. Who is Albert?— A. Albert Osness. 

Q. And you don't know the name of anyone on the ticket for whom you 
voted? — A. No. 

Q. After you voted did you go back to Shorty Stoffer's cabin and have some 
more coffee and cake? — A. No; I went back and took the paper back. 

Q. You gave the paper back to him? — A. I just left it on the table. 

Q. That was the poper that Mike gave you to show you how to vote? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. When you went back did Shorty give you any more coffee and cake? — 
A. No. 

Q. When you went back did Mike ask you if you voted the ticket the same 
as the names that were on the ticket he gave you? — A. He didn't say anything. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Rustgaed : 
Q. That paper which Mike gave you to mark your ballot was a yellow piece 
of paper, was it not? — A. Yes. 



WICKERSHAM VS. STJLZER. 295 

Q. And it was the same size as the paper you got from the judges? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. Seldovia. 

Q. Where you live in Seldovia are there any white people living around 
you? — A. Yes. 

Q. Are you married? — A. No. 

Q. Do you belong to the Greek-Russian Church? — A. Yes. 

Q. You are a regular attendant of that church? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you speak the Russian language? — A. Yes. 

Q. What language are you speaking now when you are testifying? — A. 
Russian. 

Q. Can you read anything in Russian? — A. No. 

Q. Did you ever go to school? — A, No. 

Q. What do you work at? — A. Fishing, logging, and at the cannery. 

Q. You live in Seldovia at the present time? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ever tell Mike Doyle for whom you voted? — A. No. 

Q. Did he ever talk to you about whom you voted for? — A. I don't remember 
ever talking to him about that. 

At the conclusion of the taking of the foregoing testimony, and in order to 
allow the attorney for the contestant and contestee and the notary public to 
depart from the village of Seldovia on the steamer sailing shortly thereafter, 
it was stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for each of the 
parties that the testimony of the witness Anton Dolchak, Samuel Mercuroff. 
Gregory Foxy. Gregori Kalungi, John Talknak. Nick Sakaloff, and Saverian 
JakalofC when transcribed need not be read to said witnesses and signed by 
them, and the reading of the testimony after being transcribed to the respective 
witnesses aad the signing of the same by said witnesses was then and there 
expressly waived by each of the parties to the contest acting by and through 
their respective attorneys, and the following stipulation was thereupon entered 
into : ■ 

STIPULATION. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the testimony of the witnesses Anton 
Dolchak, Samuel Mercuroff. Gregory Foxy. Gregori Kalungi, John Talknak, 
Nick Sakaloff. and Saverian .Jakaloff when transcribed shall not be read to 
said witnesses or signed by tliem, and the reading of said testimony to said 
witnesses after being transcribed and the signing of the same by said witnesses 
is hereby expressly waived, and it is agreed that the foregoing testimony of 
the said witnesses is a full, true, and correct transcript of the sworn testimony 
given by said witnesses, and that the same shall have the full force and effect 
as it would have if after being transcribed it had been read to the witnesses 
and each of said depositions had been signed bv the respective witnesses. 

Dated at Seldovia, Alaska, this 14th day of July, 1917. 

John Rustgard. 
Attorney for James Wickersham. Contestant. 

T. .1. DONOHOE, 

Attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, Contestee. 

Exhibit No. 1 of M. J. Doyle's Deposition. Feank J. Hayes, Notary Public. 

William Lowell, Mike Dolchok, Simeon Mercure. Steve Sorosnikoff, Anton 
Dolchak. Samuel Mercuroff, Foxy Gregory, Toko Coustantine. Gregorv Kalungi, 
John Talenak. Zakar Chonka, Nick Sakoloff, Saverian Jakaloff, Mrs. Ritchin, 
Lizzie Block, Irene Jacobson, Agnes Barnes. Mrs. George King, George King, 
Mrs. E. R. Bogard, Mrs. J. Cleghorn, Mrs. Sallie Bowen. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 2 of M. J. Doyle's Deposition. Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public. 

Seldovia, Alaska. Deeemher 5, 1916. 
I, Mike Dolchok, was at Shorty Stoffer's cabin. I went from there over where 
there was voting: then I voted. I went back to Shorty's place and had coffee 
and cake. He told me to come back and have coffee and cake. 

Questions asked by Deputy United States Marshal F. J. Cameron of 
Mike : 
Q. Have you voted before this time? — A. Yes ; I voted two years ago. 
Q. Who did you vote for two years ago? — A. Wickersham. 



296 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Who did you vote for this time? — A. Wiclversliam. 

Q. Are you a native? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. Seldovia, Alaska. 

Q. Was your father a native? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is your mother a native? — A. Slie is. 

[seal.] Mike Dolchok. 

Witnesses : 

M. .T. Doyle, 

H. M. Blake. 
Dated this 5tli day of December, 1916. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5tli day of December, 1916. 
[SEAL.] Annie Christiansen, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

CONTESTEE'S EXHIBIT No. 3 OF M. J. DoYLE'S DEPOSITION. FkANK .1. HaYES, 

Notary Public. 

Seldovia, Alaska, December 5, 1916. 
I, Zaliar Chonkua, do say that I voted on the 7th day of November, 1916, at 
the polling place. I went from Shorty Stoffer's cabin to vote. He showed me 
Wickersham's name, the third one from the top. and told me to vote that one ; 
and told me to come back and get coffee and cake, and I did. 

Questions asked by Deputy United States Marshal F. J. Cameron : 
Q. Are you a native? — A. Yes. 
Q. Where were you born? — A. Seldovia, Alaska. 
Q. Can you read or write? — A. No. 
[seal.] Zakar Chonkua (X). 

ByF. J. C. 
Witnesses : 

M. J. Doyle, 

Mrs. Annie Christiansen. 
Dated this 5th day of December, 1916. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me. 
[seal.] Annie Christiansen. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 4 of Deposition of M. J. Doyle. Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public. 

I, Constantine Loko, do say that I voted on the 7th day of November, 1916, 
at Fillmore's place, where they were voting. I went to Shorty Stoffer's cabin 
and had a cup of coffee. Shorty Stoffer gave me a marked ticket and told me 
to mark the one just like it. I marked my ticket in the booth just like it. 
Then I went home. Foxy told me to go to Shorty Stoffer's cabin with him. 

Questions asked by M. J. Doyle : 
Q. Have you ever voted before for Delegate to Congress? — A. Yes. 
Q. Did you vote for Wickersham at this election? — A. I don't know. 
[seal.] - Constantine Loko. (X) 

By F. J. C. 

Witness : 

M. J. Doyle, 
J. A. Hart. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of December, 1916. 
[SEAL.] Annie Christiansen, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 5 of M. J. Doyle's Deposition. Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public. 

Seldovia, Alaska, December 5, 1916. 
I, Steve E. Sorokovikoff. do say that I voted on the 7th day of November at 
the said election for Delegate to Congress. I went from Shorty Stoffer's cabin 
to the place where I voted. I then went back to his cabin and had coffee 
and cake. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 297 

Questions asked by Deputy United States Marslial F. J. Cameeon of 
Steve E. Sorokoviliofe : 

Q. What is your nationality? — A. My father was a Russian and my mother 
was a native. 

Q. AVhere was your father, born? — A. I do not know where he was born. 

Q. Who told you to vote? — A. Nobody. 

Q. Who did you vote for? — A. Wicliersham. 

[SEAL.] Steve E. Soeokovikoff. 

Witness : • 

M. J. Doyle, 
H. M. Blake. 

Dated this 5th day of December, 1916. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of December, 1916. 

[seal.] Annie Cheistiansen, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 6 of M. J. Doyle's Deposition. . Feank J. Hayes, 

NoTAEY Public. 

Seldovia, Alaska, December 5, 1916. 
I, Irene Jacobson. do say that I voted on the 7th day of November at the 
said election for Delegate to Congress. I took Mrs. Block with me. I told her 
I was going to vote. She said that she would go with me. Nobdy told me 
to vote. Milo Hulbert marked my ticket for me. 

Questions asked by Deputy United States Marshal F. J. Cameeon : 
Q. Are you a native? — A. Yes. 

Q. Are you married to Mr. Nelse Jacobson? — A. Yes. 
Q. Where were you born? — A. Kodiak. 
[seal.] Mrs. Ieene Jacobson. (X) 

By F. J. C. 
Witness : 

M. J. Doyle, 

Mrs. Annie Cheistiansen. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of December, 1916. 
[seal.] Annie Cheistiansen, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

ceetificate of notaey. 

United States of America. 

Territory of Alaska, third division, ss: 
I, Frank J. Hayes, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, duly 
commissioned and sworn, residing at Valdez, Alaska, do hereby certify that 
pursuant to the notice served on Contestant James Wickersham at Auburn. 
King County, State of Washington, on the 27th day of June, 1917, which said 
notice and proof of service thereof is attached to the deposition of Arthur Lang, 
and pursuant to a stipulation entered into between James Wickersham, con- 
testant, acting by and through his duly accredited attorney, John Rustgard, 
and Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, acting by and through his duly accredited 
attorney, T. J. Donohoe, made on the 13th day of July. 1917, which stipula- 
tion is attached to the foregoing depositions, personally appeared before me 
at the hour of 11 o'clock in the forenoon upon the 13th day of July, 1917, at 
the office of the deputy United States marshal at the town of Seldovia, third 
judicial division. Territory of Alaska, M. J. Doyle. Anton Dolchok, Samuel 
Mercuroff. Gregory Foxy, Gregori Kalungi. John Talenak. Nick Sakaloff, and 
Saverian Jakaloff. witnesses on behalf of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee; that 
each of said witnesses was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing else but the truth, and then and there gave his deposition 
as hereinbefoi-e set forth upon the oral interrogatories propounded to him by 
T. J. Donohoe, attorney for Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, and upon the oral 
cross-interrogatories propounded to him by John Rustgard, attornev for James 
Wickersham, contestant, and in the taking of the deposition of M. J. Doyle 



298 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

the several depositions attached to it thereafter were thereupon duly intro- 
duced in evidence ; that the said deposition of M. J. Doyle after being taken 
by me in shorthand was typev/ritten by me, and after being typewritten it was 
read to said witness and corrected by him and was submitted to and read by 
each of the attorneys for the parties to the above-entitled contest and approved 
by them as correct and was then and there subscribed and attested to by the 
said M. J. Doyle as being true in all i-espects and being the testimony given 
by him; that at the close of the depositions of M. J. Doyle, Anton Dolchok, 
Samuel Mercuroff, Gregory Foxy. Gregori Kalungi, John Talenak, Nick Saka- 
loff, and Saverian JakalofC it was stipulated and agreed by and between each 
of the parties to the above-entitled contest that the depositions of said wit- 
nesses when transcribed need not be read to, corrected, and signed or attested 
by said witnesses : that said depositions after being taken by me in shorthand 
were typewritten by me and after being so typewritten were submitted to and 
read by the attorneys of each of the parties to the above-entitled contest and 
was approved by them, and thereupon said parties, acting by and through their 
respective attorneys, stipulated and agreed that the foregoing transcript of 
the depositions of each of said witnesses is a full, true, and correct transcript 
of the sworn testimony given by said witnesses, and that the same should 
have the same force and effect as it would have if after being transcribed it 
had been read to the witnesses, signed and attested by each of said wrLnesses. 
Said stipulation is hereto attached to the foregoing depositions. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed my notarial 
seal this 4th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Frank J. Hayes, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 

My commission expires May 19, 1921. 

NOTICE or TAKING DEPOSITIONS. 

To the Hon. James Wickersham. 

Contestant in the above-en titled proceeding: 

You are hereby notified that the depositions of Strong, governor of 

the Territoryof Alaska. Charles Davidson, W. W. Shorthill. J. F. Pugh, and 
J. W. Bell, and each of them, each and all of whom are residents of the city 
of Juneau, in the Territory of Alaska, will be taken before Grover C. Winn, a 
notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, at his office in said city of 
Juneau, at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m., on the 24th day of July, 1917, to be read 
in evidence in the above-entitled proceeding in behalf of said Charles A. Sulzer, 
and that the taking of said depositions will be continued from day to day there- 
after and over Sundays and other holidays, if any, until the taking of the same 
shall have been completed. 

Dated this, the 14th, day of July, A. D. 1917. 

Charles A. Sulzer, 

Contestee, 
By J. A. Hellenthal and 
.John R. Winn, 
Attorneys for Charles A. Sulzer, Contestee. 

affidavit or service. 
State of Washington. 

County of Kind, ss: 
C. E. BODLE, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says : I am now, 
and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a citizen of the United States and 
a citizen and resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 years, 
competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and not a party 
thereto. On the 14th day of July, 1917, I received a copy of the notice of tak- 
ing depositions in the above-entitled matter, and thereafter, on the 14th day 
of July, 1917, at Seattle. King County. Wash., I personally served said notice 
of taking depositions upon .James Wickersham by delivering to and leaving 
with said James Wickersham, personally, a full, true, and correct copy of said 
notice of taking depositions. 

C. E. Bodle. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] Dallas V. Halverstadt, 

Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 299 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtTET FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, DIVISION NO. 1. 

The President of the United States of America to Gov. J. F. A. Strong, 
Charles Davidson, J. F. Pugh, W. W. Shorthill, and J. W. Bell greeting: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before me, the undersigned, G. C. 
Winn, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, at my ofiice in the 
Valentine Building, at Juneau, Alaska, on Tuesday, the 24th day of July, A. D. 
1917, at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m. of said day, to testify on behalf of the con- 
testee, Charles A. Sulzer. in a proceeding instituted before the House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, in which James Wicker- 
sham is contestant and Charles A. Sulzer is contestee. 

You are hereby commanded to bring with you — 

(a) The following list of returns of the election held on the 7th day of 
November, A. D. 1916, in which election James Wickersham, contestant, Charles 
A. Sulzer. contestee, and one Lena Morrow Lewis were candidates for the 
office of Delegate to Congress : 

1. Complete returns from the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nizina, Nush- 
agak, Utica. Bonnifield, and Vault, which returns are to include the original 
ballots used in each of the above-named precincts. 

2. The election returns of the voting precinct of Sourdough, including the 
registers of votes on which the names of the persons who voted in said pre- 
cint appear, and the tally sheet or sheets and certificate or certificates of re- 
sults of said precinct. 

3. Any and all returns of said election received from the second judicial divi- 
sion of the Territory of Alaska. 

4. Any and all election returns, including any and all certificates of results 
from the preciActs of Juneau No. 1, Juneau No. 2, Loring, and Tokitna. 

5. The election returns, including any and all oaths taken by oliicers of said 
election from the precincts of Cliff, Camlle. Cape Nome, Kobuy, Koyuk,, Nome 
No. 1, Nome No. 2, Nome No. 3, Chinik, Port Clarence, Shelton, Solomon, Taylor 
Creek, Anchorage No. 2, Charcoal Point, Eagle (Juneau recording district), 
Hope, Cripple, McGrath, Bonanza (WMle River recording district), Kasaan, 
Granite, and Fidalg. 

6. The election returns, including the oath of office taken by the judges from 
the following precincts : Cache Creek, Landlock, McDougall, Nizina, Teikel 
(Chitina recording district), Teikhell (Valdez recording district). Willow 
Creek, Afognak, Spruce Creek, Salchaket, Upper Cleary, Woodchopper (Hot 
Springs recording district). Ester, Fish Creek. Lower Gold Stream, Mouth of 
Crooked, Bettles, Deadwood, Keniai, Mendenhall, Haines, and Seldovia. 

7. All election returns, including the certificate of results for the precincts of 
Fort Gibbons and Tanana, and Seldovia and Afognak. 

(b) The full returns of the election held the Tuesday after the first Monday 
in November in the year 1914, from the precincts of Fort Gibbons and Tanana 
and Seldovia and Afognak. 

(c) The opinion of George B. Grigsby, then Territorial councel, now attorney 
general, rendered February 19. 1917, at the request of the canvassing board 
through their chairman. Gov. J. F. A. Strong, under date of February 16, 1917. 

Hereof fail not. 

In witness whereof I haA^e hereunto set my signature and official seal of 
Juneou, Alaska, this 18th day of July, A. D. 1917. 

[seal.] G. C. Winn, 

Notary Puhlic for Alaska. 
My commission expires July 22, 1917. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1, ss: 
I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 18th day of July, 
1917, at Juneau, Alaska, and that I served the same on W. W. Shorthill on the 
same day at Juneau, Alaska, by handing to and leaving with him a certified 
copy of the original writ herein, said service made personally, aud I further 
certify that on the 19th day of July, 1917. at Juneau, Alaska. I made service of 
'the within writ on Charles Davidson by handing to and leaving with him a 
certified copy of the original writ herein, said service made personally, and I 
further certify that on the 20th day of July, 1917, at Juneau, Alaska, I made 
service of the within writ on Gov. J. F. A. Strong by leaving a certified copy 
of the within writ at his residence, the governor's mansion, in the possession of 



300 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Hilma Rusenin, she being an inmate of said residence and' of legal age to accept 
service. 

Marshal's fees, $2.25 ; paid by Grover C. Winn. 
Dated at Juneau, Alaska. July 21, 1917. 

J. M. Tanner, 
Vnited States Marshal. 
By J. L. Manning. 
' Office Deputy. 

DEPOSITIONS. 

This matter came on regularly before G. C. Winn, pursuant to the hereunto 
attached notice served upon James Wickersham, at 10 o'clock a. m. on the 24th 
day of July, 1917, both parties being represented, Charles A. Sulzer being repre- 
sented by his counsel, Messrs. Hellenthal & Hellenthal and John R. Winn, and 
James Wickersham being represented by his counsel, John H. Cobb. 

Now, it is agreed by and between the parties that L. A. Green, the official 
court reporter for the first division of the Territory of Alaska, may and shall 
act as reporter to take the testimony, under the direction of the said G. C. Winn 
as notary public, and shall extend the notes so taken under his supervision and 
direction. 

Hellenthal & Hellenthal, 
By J. A. Hellenthal, 
Jno. R. Winn, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 
J. H. Cobb, 

Attorney for Contestant. 

Thereupon appeared W. W. SHORTHILL, a witness called by the contestee, 
Charles A. Sulzer, who, being first duly sworn, on oath testified in answer to 
questions as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. J. A. Hellenthal : 

Q. You may state your name. — A. W. W. Shorthill. 

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Shorthill? — A. Juneau, Alaska. 

Q. What official position, if any, do you occupy? — A. Secretary to the gov- 
ernor. 

Q. Secretary to the governor of Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The hon. J. F. A. Strong is the governor? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Gov. Strong is at present absent from the Territory? — A. Well, he is on 
his way to Juneau, but whether he is in the Territory as yet I do not know. 

Q. He is not in Juneau at any rate? — A. He is not in Juneau. 

Q. And hasn't been in Juneau for some little time? — A. Since the 29th of May. 

Q. As secretary to the governor you are in charge of and have control of the 
records and files of the governor's office? — A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Have you among those records and files the returns from the various 
election precincts in the Territory of Alaska sent in by the judges of election 
from those various precincts in connection with the election held in November 
of 1916?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the election in which Charles A. Sulzer and James Wickersham 
were opposing candidates? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Among the returns on file in the governor's' office and in your charge have 
you the returns from the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Nazina~, Nushagak, 
Utica, Bounifield. and Vault? — A. l^es. sir. 

Q. Will you kindly hand me the returns, first, from the precinct of Choggi- 
ung? — A. Yes, sir. [Hands papers to counsel.] 

Q. I hand you here, M^. Shorthill, certain papers fastened together and 
marked " Contestee'g Exhibit A," and ask you to look at that and state what 
that is and v,iint that exhibit represents? — A. It is the election register and 
tally book of the Choggiung voting precinct, Bristol Bay recording district, third 
judicial division of Alaska, and contains the oath of office of the judges of 
election, the register of the voters, the judges' certificate, the register, the tally 
book or sheets, and the certificate of the judges to the election returns showing 
the total votes received by each candidate, and also has attached to it the ballots 
which were returned by the election board for that precinct. 

Q. The ballots attached are the original ballots returned with the election 
returns from that precinct? — A. l^es, sir; those are the original ballots. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 301 

Q. How many ballots are attached to this exhibit? — A. Twenty-four. 
Q. Is that all the ballots returned with the election returns? — A. So far as 
I know, it is ; yes, sir. 

Q. These returns have been in your cvistody ever since received at the gover- 
nor's office? — A. Yes. 

Q. And have been as carefully guarded as could be? — A. Yes. 

Q. And no other or further ballots are with the returns from Choggiung? — 
A. No ; there are no others with the papers. 

Q. To the best of your knowledge, the 24 ballots attached to Exhibit A are 
all the ballots returned from that precinct? — A. To the best of my knowledge, 
yes: I do not know whether the record of the canvassing board cont<iins any 
explanation as to the other 4 or not. 

Q. Now, Exhibit A, Mr. Shorthill, comprises all the returns sent in from the 
Choggiung precinct? — A. Yes, sir; all that came in from the election board. 

Q. The election board sent no returns from the Choggiung precinct other 
than the papers attached to Exhibit A? — A. No. sir. 

Q. That is to saj , Exhibit A represents all that were sent in? — A. Represents 
all the returns sent in to the governor's office by the election board. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer in evidence this package of pajoers marked 
" Contestee's Exhibit A." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon, said Exhibit A being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. Now, have yo-u the returns from Deering? — A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. Shorthill. I hand you here a bundle of papers attached together and 
marked " Contestee's Exhibit B." and ask you to look at it and state what is 
contained in that bundle of papers? — A. It contains a duplicate register of 
voters of the Deering voting precinct, second judicial division, the certificate 
of the judges to the result of election, and IS typewritten ballots. 

Q. The ballots attached, Mr. Shorthill, are the original ballots returned to 
the canvassing board by the election board from the Deering precinct? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the other papers to which you have testified were also returned to the 
canvassing board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, " Contestee's Exhibit B " contains all the papers and documents of 
every character and description returned from the Deering precinct to the 
governor of Alaska or the canvassing board in connection with the November 
election? — A. Those are all that came in with the returns from the election 
board ; yes, sir, 

Q. From the judges? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The Exhibit B contains all the papej'S sent in as election returns by the 
judges from the Deering precinct? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To the governor, from there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And to the board of canvassers? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Including the original ballots and everything else that was sent in? — 
A. Everything that came with the returns ; yes. sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We will offer that exhibit in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said ExhilMt B being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand yoit here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit C," and ask you to look at this bundle of papers and state what it 
represents. — A. It is the original election returns from the Nushagak voting 
precinct, Bristol Bay recording district, third division of Alaska. 

Q. When you speak of election returns you mean the returns sent in by the 
election board to the governor of Alaska and the canvassing board? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Does this Exhibit C contain all the papers and documents of every kind 
sent in by the election board to the governor and the canvassing board? — 
A. Yes, sir ; everything. 

Q. Comprises the complete election returns? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the ballots attached are the original ballots sent in with those re- 
turns? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer Exhibit C in evidence. 

Mr. Cork. No objection. 



302 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit C being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made tliereto, It was dvily received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit D " and ask you to look at it and state what is contained in that bundle 
of papers. — A. It is the original election returns from the judges of election of 
the Utica voting precinct, Fairhaven recording district, second judicial division, 
sent to the governor's Office by the election board. 

Q. Exhibit D contains all the election returns sent in by the election board 
from the precinct named to the governor of Alaska and the canvassing board? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In connection with the election held on November 7, 1916? — A. Every- 
thing that came in as the original returns from the board. There was subse- 
quently an affidavit or something of that sort sent in, but it did not come in 
with the original returns. 

Q. And the ballots attached are the original ballots sent in by the election 
board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There were no papers sent in by the election board other than the papers 
contained in Exhibit D? — A. None sent direct to the governor's office; no, sir. 

Q. And this Exhibit D contains all the papers sent with the returns? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. These returns, Mr. Shorthill, did not all come in one envelope? — A. No ; 
they came in in two envelopes. 

Q. One arrived shortly after the other one? — A. One arrived in December. I 
think, and the other not until February. The receipt date is stamped on the 
envelope there. 

Q. What was contained in the first envelope; do you remember? — A. I 
couldn't be certain now. but I think it was the ballots ; and subsequently !■ 
think the certificates and the register came in, but that is only an indistinct 
recollection now. I did not make any note of it at the time. 

Q. You know, however, that they came in two separate packages? — A. They 
came in two separate packnges; I know that. 

Q. And Exhibit D contains all that was contained in the two envelopes? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the two envelopes attached to Exhibit D are the two original en- 
velopes in which the returns were received by the Governor's office? — A. Yes. 
sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer Exhibit D in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Wliereupon said Exhibit D being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto it wns duly received.) 

Q. I now hand you here a bundle .of papers, Mr. Shorthill, marked " Oon- 
testee's Exhibit E," and ask you to look at it and state what that repre- 
sents? — A. It is the original election returns from the Bonnifield voting pre- 
cinct, Fairbanks recording district, fourth division, as sent to the governor's 
office by the election board for that precinct and contains the complete returns 
made by the board. 

Q. Exhibit E contains all the papers and returns sent in from that pre- 
cinct? — A. Yes. 

Q. To the governor's office and the canvassing board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthai.. I will now offer Exhibit E in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit E being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit F," and 
ask you to look at that bundle of papers and state what it contains? — A. It 
contains the election returns from the Vault voting precinct, Fairbanks record- 
ing district, fourth division, as sent to the governor's office bv the election 
boaKl. 

Q. That bundle of papers, Mr. Shorthill, contains all the election, returns 
sent by the election board to the governor's office and the canvassing board? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And is complete in every sense?— A. Yes, sir; the complete returns sent in. 

xVIr. He,llenthal. I oifer Exhibit F in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

( Whereupon said Exhibit F being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 



WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 303 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit G," and ask you to look at that and state what It contains? — A. It is 
the election returns from the Sour Dough voting precinct, Copper Center 
recording district, third judicial division, as sent to the governor's office by the 
election board for that precinct, and contains all of the returns sent to the 
governor's office by the board. 

Q. No other or further returns were received by the governor or the can- 
vassing board from that precinct than those attached and contained in the 
bundle of papers marked Exhibit G? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that bundle of papers marked Exhibit G in evi- 
dence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit G being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. I now hand you a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit H " and 
ask you to look at that and state what that bundle of papers contains? — A. It 
contains the election returns from the first precinct of Juneau — or Juneau No. 
1, as it is known — as sent to the governor's office by the election board for 
that precinct, and contains everything except the official ballots. 

Q. That bundle of papers, Mr. Shorthill, contains all the returns sent from the 
Juneavi precinct No. 1, except that the official ballots are not attached to the 
bundle of papers? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence — the bundle of papers marked 
Exhibit H. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit H being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you uow a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit " and 
ask you to look at that, Mr. Shorthill, and state what is contained within that 
bundle of papers? — ^A. It is the election returns from Juneau voting precinct 
No. 2, city of Juneau, as sent to the governor's office by the election board for 
that precinct ; contains all the returns sent in by the board except the ballots. 

Q. The original ballots were recived by you? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. With the returns from the board? — A. Yes, tir. 

Q. But are not attached to this bundle of papers? — A. No; not attached. 

Q. And this bundle of papers contains all the returns sent in except those 
original ballots? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will now offer Exhibit I in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Iilxhibit I being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. I now hand you a bundle of papers, Mr. Shorthill, marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit J " and ask you to look at that and state what that is? — A. It con- 
tains the original election returns as sent in by the elecion board from the 
Loring voting precinct. Ketchikan recording district, first division, sent by the 
lio-i-^ to the governor's office; and also a certificate of result which was subse- 
quently sent in by the board. 

(J. It contains all the returns sent in by the board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And these returns have come, as in some other cases, in two separate 
envelopes at different times? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But they were all sent by the election board to the governor's office and the 
canvassing board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And have been in your custody ever since? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the Exhibit .J contains all the returns so sent?^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Including the ballots? — A. Including the ballots; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer in evidence Exhibit J. 

Mr. CoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit J being off'ered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit K " and ask yoti to look at it and state what that bundle of papers con- 
tains? — A. It contains the election returns as sent to the governor's office by the 
election board for the Fort Gibbon voting precinct. Fort Gibbon recording dis- 
trict, fourth division. 

Q. At the election of November 7, 1916? — A. Yes, sir; and contains all the re- 
turns except the ballots. 



304 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. This bundle of papers contains all the election returns sent in by tlie elec- 
tion board for that precinct except the ballots, which you also have in your 
possession? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But they are not attached to this bundle of papers? — A. No, sir; they are 
not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I olfer in evidence " Contestee's Exhibit K." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit K being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, another bundle of papers marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit L " and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. 
It contains the election returns from the incorporated town of Tenana, fourth 
division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board for that town, and 
contains all of the returns except the official ballots. 

Q. The official ballots were also received by you but not attached to this bundle 
of papers? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This is at the November, 1916, election? — A. Yes, sir; November, 1916. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer in evidence " Contestee's Exhibit L." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit L being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I noAv hand you, Mr. Shorthill, a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit M" and ask you to look at it and state what that is. — A. It contains the 
election returns from Seldovia voting precinct, Kenai recording district, third 
judicial division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board for that 
precinct, and contains all of the returns except the official ballots which are not 
attached. 

Q. The official ballots were received by yoti but are not attached to the ex- 
hibit? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And all the other election returns received are included within this bundle 
of papers? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This is for the 1916 election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer in evidence the bundle of papers marked " Ex- 
hibit M." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit M being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio with attached papers, marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit N." and ask you to look at that and state what it contains? — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from the Afognak voting precinct, Kodiak recording 
district, third judicial division, as sent to the governor's ofhce by the election 
board for that precinct, and contains all the election returns except the official 
ballots which were received but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer in evidence " Contestee's Exhibit N." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit N being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, it was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill. you also have in your custody the returns from the Eagle 
voting precinct? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. These have not been called for in the subpoena, but you also have those 
returns? — A. I have them, yes; they are not named in the subpoena. 

Q. l^ou will kindly hand me those returns? — A. Those are the returns with 
the exception of the ballots. (Handing bundle of papers to counsel.) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio containing papers marked " Contestee's Ex- 
hibit O," and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. It contains 
the election returns from the incorporated town of Eagle, in the fourth judicial 
division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board for that town, 
and contains all of the returns sent in by the board except the official ballots, 
which were received but are not attached to the portfolio. 

Q. You received the official ballots, Mr. Shorthill, but they are not attached 
to this bundle of papers marked "Exhibit O?"— A. No; they are not attached; 
thev were received, but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer in evidence now the bundle of papers marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit O." 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit O being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 



WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 305 

T. 9•.J^^•^^^^^*^^^^' ^ ^^^^ y^^ ^^^^ a bundle of papers marked " Oontestee's 
Exhibit P, and ask you to look at that and state what it is.— A. It is the 
election returns from the Fort Gibbon voting precinct, fourth judicial division 
for the election of November 3, 1914, as sent to the governor's office by the 
election board for that precinct, and contains all of the returns except the 
ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Helj^enthai,. I now offer in evidence " Oontestee's Exhibit P " 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit P being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I now hand you, Mr. Shorthill, a bundle of papers marked " Oontestee's 
Exhibit Q," and ask you to look at that and state what that bundle of papers, 
contains, and what it is.— A. It contains the election returns from the incor- 
porated town of Tenana, fourth judicial division, as sent to the governor's; 
office by the election board of that town, covering the November, 1914, election, 
and contains all of the returns except the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached to the papers. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer in evidence the bundle of papers marked " Oon- 
testee's Exhibit Q." 

Mr. OoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Q being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was received.) 
^ Q. Mr. Shorthill, I now hand you a portfolio or bundle of papers marked 

Oontestee's Exhibit R " and ask you to look at that and state what that port- 
folio contains.— A. It contains the election returns from the Seldovia voting 
precinct, Kenai recording district, third judicial division, as sent to the governor's 
office by the election board, covering the November, 1914, election, and contains 
all of the returns received from the board except the ballots, which were 
received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer this in evidence. 

Mr. OoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit R being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was received.) 

Q. I now hand you here a portfolio containing some papers, marked " Oon- 
testee's Exhibit S," and ask you to look at that and state what that contains.— 
A. It contains the election returns from the Afognak voting precinct, Kodiak 
recording district, third judicial divison, as sent to the governor's office by the 
electon board of that precinct, covering the November. 1914, election, ana con- 
tains all of the returns received from the board except the ballots which were 
received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer in evidence " Oontestee's Exhibit S." 

Mr. OoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit S being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, you also have in your possession the election returns from 
the Eagle voting precinct for the year 1914— the election held in the fall of 
1914?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you kindly produce those returns? — A. Yes, sir. [Hands papers to 
counsel.] 

Q. They were not called for in the subpoena, but you produce them without 
having them specified in the subpoena? — A. Yes, sir; on the verbal request of 
Mr. Hellenthal. 

Q. I hand you here some papers attached together and marked " Oontestee's 
Exhibit T " and ask you what that bundle contains? — A. It contains the election 
returns from the incorporated town of Eagle, covering the November, 1914, 
election, as sent to the governor's office by the election board of that town, 
and contains all of the election returns except the ballots, which were received 
but are not attached. 

Q. Those are the returns from the Eagle precinct?— A. Yes, sir; the incorpo- 
rated town of Eagle. 

Q. For the year 1914? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer those in evidence. 

Mr. OoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit T being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, you also have in your custody among the files of the gov- 
ernor's office the opinion of the attorney general, George Grigsby, relating to 
13289—17 20 



306 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

the matters that arose in connection with the canvassing of the ballots and the 
election returns for the year 1916? — A. We have an unsigned copy of it ; yes. 

Q. You have also a signed copy of it, have you not ? — A. No ; we have not. 

Q. This is the opinion, anyhow [referring to paper held by counsel] ? — A. That 
is the opinion as delivered to the governor by Mr. Grigsby ; yes, sir. I do not 
know where the original is — whether it was delivered to the governor or not. 

Q. This is the opinion as delivered, whether signed or not? — A. Yes. 

Q. I hand you Exhibit U, which consists of two opinions fastened together; 
those two opinions are the opinions of Attorney General Grisby delivered to 
the governor in reference to this canvass of the votes? — A. Yes, sir; they are 
the opinions as rendered by Mr. Grigsby while acting as Territorial counsel ; 
he was not then the attorney general. They are dated February 19, 1917, and 
were rendered in response to the governor's request of February 16, 1917, in 
answer to 20 questions which were submitted to Mr. Grigsby. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer Exhibit U in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit U being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, you also have in your custody and under your control the 
returns from the precincts of Craig, Unalakleet, Anchorage No. 1, and Naknek, 
for the year 1916? — A. Yes, sir ; we have those returns. 

Q. Will you produce those after the lunch hour? — A. Yes, sir. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, JULY 24, 1917, 2 P. M. 

W, W. Shorthill on the witness stand. 

Direct examination (continued) by Mr. J. A. Hellenthal: 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit 
T," and ask you to look at it and state what it contains. — A. It contains the 
election returns from Craig voting precinct, Ketchikan recording district, first 
judicial division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board, and con- 
tains everything except the official ballots. 

Q. The ballots are not attached to the package? — A. The ballots are not 
attached. 

Q. Aside from the ballots this contains the election returns from the Craig 
precinct? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer Exhibit V in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit V being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made to the same, it was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit W," and will 
ask you what that bundle of papers contains? — A. It contains the election re- 
turns from the Naknek voting precinct, Kvichak recording district, third judi- 
■cial division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board of that pre- 
cinct, covering the 1916 election, containing all of the returns excluding the 
ballots. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that bundle of papers in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon Exhibit W being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit X," and 
ask you to look at it and state what that bundle contains. — A. It contains the 
election returns from the St. Michael No. 2 voting precinct, St. Michael re- 
cording district, second judicial division, and contains all of the returns ex- 
cept the ballots, which were received but were not attached. The precinct is 
sometimes known as Unalakleet. 

Q. This is the same precinct that is sometimes referred to as Unalakleet? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I oifer in evidence this package of papers marked Ex- 
hibit X. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit X being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit Y," and ask you to state what that contains. — A. It contains the elec- 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 307 

tion returns from the Clift voting precinct, Valdez recording district, third 
division, as returned bj' the election board to the governor's office, and contains 
everytliing except the ballots, which were received, but are not attached, and 
includes also a supplemental affidavit of one of the judges explaining the irregu- 
larity in the form of oath of the judges. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer this Exhibit Y in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Y being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a package of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit Z," and ask you to look at it and state what it is. — A. It contains the 
election returns from the Candle voting precinct, second judicial division, as for- 
warded to the governor's office by the election board, but does not include the 
ballots. 

Q. Everything except the ballots? — A. Everything except the ballots. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that bundle of papers in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Z being offered in evidence and no objection being 
, inade thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit A-1 " ; will you look at that and state what that contains? — A. It con- 
tains the returns of the election from the Cape Nome voting precinct, second 
judicial division, as sent to the governor's office by the election board, and is 
the complete returns with the exception of the ballots, which were received, 
but are not attached. 

Q. Contains everything except the ballots? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer the bundle of papers marked " Exhibit A-1 " in 
evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit A-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a package of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit B-1," 
and ask you to look at that and state what that contains. — A. It contains the 
election returns from the Kobuk, or Noatak Kobuk, as it is designated here, 
voting precinct, in the second judicial division, as sent to the governor's office 
by the election board, and contains all the returns that were sent in with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received, but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that bundle of papers in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit B-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit C-," and ask 
you to look at that and state what that contains. — A. I contains the election 
returns from the Koyuk voting precinct, second judicial division, as sent to the 
governor's office by the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which 
were received, but are not attached. 

Q. All the other returns are attached to this bundle? — A. Yes, sir; every- 
thing that was received. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit C-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I have here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit 
D-1." I will ask you to look at that and state what that contains. — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from the first precince of the incorporated town of 
Nome, second division, as forwarded by the judges of election for that precinct, 
and contains all of the returns except the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached. 

Q. Outside of the ballots that contains everything that was sent by the elec- 
tion board to the governor's office? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit D-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit E-1 " 
and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. This contains all of 



308 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

the election returns from the second voting precinct of the incorporated town of 
Nome, second division, forwarded by the election board of that precinct to the 
governor's office, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached. 
Q. Contains everything else? — A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I now offer this in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 
^ (Whereupon said Exhibit E-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 

being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you a bundle of papers marked " Contestee's Exhibit F-1," and ask 
you to state what that package contains.— A. It contains the election returns 
from the third voting precinct of the incorporated town of Nome, second divi- 
sion, as forwarded to the governor's office by the election board for that pre- 
cinct, and contains all of the election returns received except the ballots, which 
were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthax. I offer that bundle of papers in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit F-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) t 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, a package marked " Contestee's Exhibit 
G-1 " and ask you what that contains.— A. It contains the election returns from 
Chinik voting precinct, second judicial division, as forwarded to the governor's 
office by the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were re- 
ceived but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit G-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers marked and identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit H-1 " and ask you to look at that and state what that contains. — A. It 
, contains the election returns from the Port Clarence voting precinct, second 
judicial division, as forwarded to the governor's office by the election board, 
with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this exhibit in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit H-1 being offered in evidence and no objection be- 
ing made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a package of papers marked and identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit I-l " and ask you to state what that bundle contains. — A. It contains 
the election returns from the Shelton voting precinct, second judicial division, 
as forwarded to the governor's office by the election board, but does not include 
the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Q. Includes everything but the ballots? — A. Yes. The register is marked 
Dahl voting precinct, but in the order designating the precinct the commis- 
sioner designated it as Shelton, evidently because on the inside there is a 
pencil correction made by the canvassing board marking it as Shelton. 

Q. There were no other returns received from the Shelton precinct? — A. 
No, sir. 

Q. And these were the only returns received which were counted and treated 
as returns received from the Shelton precinct? — A. Yes. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit I-l being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers, marked and identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit J-1," and ask you what that bundle contains? — A. It contains the 
election returns from the Solomon voting precinct, second judicial division, as 
forwarded to the governor's office by the election board, with the exception 
of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit J-1 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a package of papers, marked and identified as " Con- 
testee's Exhibit K-1," and ask you to state what that bundle contains? — A. It 
contains the election returns from the Taylor voting precinct, second judicial 



WTCKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 309 

division, as forwarded to the governor's office by the election board, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this exhibit in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit K-1 being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, a bundle of papers attached together, 
and marked and identified as " Contestee's Exhibit L-1." Please look at that 
and state what it contains? — A. It contains the election returns from An- 
chorage No. 2 voting precinct, third judicial division, as forwarded to the gov- 
ernor's office by the election board of that precinct, with the exception of 
the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer his exhibit in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit L-1 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers tied together, and marked and 
identified as " Contestee's Exhibit M-1," and I will ask you to look at that 
exhibit and state what it contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the 
Charcoal Point voting precinct, first judicial division, as forwarded to the 
governor's office by the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which 
w^ere received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit M-1 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers, Mr. Shorthill, marked and identified 
as " Contestee's Exhibit N-1." Will you please look at that and state what 
it contains? — A. It contains the election returns from the Eagle voting precinct, 
first judicial division, as forwarded to the governor's office by the election 
board, -with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not at- 
tached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit N-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you a package, Mr. Shorthill, marked and identified as " Con- 
testee's Exhibit 0-1," and ask you to please look at that and state what that 
bundle contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the Vope voting pre- 
cinct, third judicial division, as forwarded to the governor's office by the 
election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will off this bundle of papers in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit 0-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers mai'ked and identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit P-1," and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. It 
contains the election returns from the Cripple voting precinct, fourth judicial 
division, as forwarded to the governor's office by the election board, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit P-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I am now handing you a package of papers attached 
together and marked and identified as " Contestee's Exhibit Q-1." Will you 
please state what that contains?— A. It contains the election returns from the 
McGrath voting precinct, fourth judicial division, as received by the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were 
received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Q-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a package of papers marked and identified 
as "Contestee's Exhibit R-1," and ask you to state what that bundle con- 



310 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 

tains. — A. It contains the election returns from the Bonanza voing precinct. 
White River recording district, third judicial division, as forwarded to the gov- 
ernor's office by the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which 
were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this bundle of papers in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit R-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, a portfolio marked "Contestee's Exhibit 
S-1." State what that contains.— A. It contains the election returns from the 
Kasaan voting precinct, first judicial division, as received by the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, wliich were 
received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit S-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio package of papers attached 
together, marked and identified as " Contestee's Exhibit T-1," and will ask 
you to state what that contains. — ^A. It contains; the election returns from the 
Granite voting precinct, third judicial division, as forwarded to the governor's 
office by the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were re- 
ceived but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit T-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I now hand yon a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit U-1." Please 
state what that contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the Fidalgo 
voting precinct, third judicial division, as received at the governor's office from 
the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that package in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit U-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit 
V-1," and ask you to state what that contains. — A. It contains the election re- 
turns from the Cache Creek voting precinct, third judicial division, as received 
by the governor's office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots; 
which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit V-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being: 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio or package of papers^ marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit W-1," and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. It 
contains the election returns from the Landlock voting precinct, third judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received but not attached. 

Q. Contains everything except the ballots? — ^A. Yes. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit W-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. I hand you hex^e a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Exhibit X-1."' 
Please state what that contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the 
McDowell voting precinct, third judicial division, as received at the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were 
received but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit X-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being- 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit Y-1," and ask you ta 
please state what that contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the 
Teikel voting precinct, third judicial division, as received at the governor's office 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 311 

from tlie election board, with tlie exception of the ballots, which were received 
but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Y-1 being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the ^ame was duly received. ) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Exhibit Z-1." Will 
you please state what that contains? — A. It contains the election returns from 
the Teikhell voting precinct, third judicial division, as received at the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were 
received but are not attached. 

Q. Everything but the ballots is contained in this exhibit? — A. Yes. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this exhibit in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Z-1 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio marked and identified as "Con- 
testee's -Exhibit A-2," and ask you to look at that and state what it contains. — 
A. It contains the election returns from the Willow Creek voting precinct, third 
judicial division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, 
with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Q. Everything but the ballots is contained in that exhibit? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit A-2 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a package marked " Contestee's Exhibit B-2," and I will 
ask you to look at that and state what is contained in that package. — A. It 
contains the election returns from the Spruce Creek voting precinct, fourth 
judicial division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, 
with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Q. It contains everything but the ballots? — A. Yes. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence, 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit B-2 being offered in evidence and no objection be- 
ing made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a package marked and identified as " Contestee's Exhibit 
C-2." I wish you would look at that and state what it contains. — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from the Salchaket voting precinct, fourth judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, with the 
exception of tht ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this bundle of papers marked " Exhibit C-2 " in 
evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit C-2 being offered in evidence and no objection be- 
ing made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a package identified as " Contestee's Ex- 
hibit D-2." I wish you would look at that and state what is contained in that 
envelope. — A. This contains the election returns from the Upper Cleary voting 
precinct, fourth division, as received at the governor's office from the election 
board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not at- 
tached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit D-2 being offei'ed in evidence and no objection be- 
ing made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Ex- 
hibit E-2," and ask you to look at it and state what it contains. — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from the Wood Chopper voting precinct. Hot Springs 
recording district, fourth judicial division, as received at the governor's office 
from the election lioi'rd. with the exceiition of the ballots, which were received 
but not attached. The book is marked Tofty precinct, but this precinct is offi- 
cially known as the Wood Chopper precinct. 

Q. ISiere were no returns received from the Wood Chopper precinct other 
than these? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. These have been canvassed by the canvassing board as the returns from 
the Wood Chopper precinct?— A. Yes, sir. 



312 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Although they are markeci Tofty? — A. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this exhibit in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit E-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I have here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Exhibit F-2." I wish 
you woidd look at that and state what it contains. — A. It contains the election 
returns from the Ester voting precinct, fourth judicial division, as received at 
the governor's office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, 
which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that bundle of papers in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit P-2 being offered in evidence, and no objetcion 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a package of what purports to be election 
returns, marked " Contestee's Exhibit G-2." I wish you would look at those 
and state what that contains. — A. This contains the election returns from the 
Fish Creek voting precinct, fourth judicial division, as received at the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were re- 
ceived but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer this in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit G-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Ex- 
hibit H-2." Will you look at that and state what it contains? — A. It contains 
the election returns from the Lower Coldstream voting precinct, fourth judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, with the 
exceptiu of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We otter that package in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit H-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit 1-2." I will ask you what that contains? — A. It contains the election 
returns from the Mouth of Crooked voting precinct, fourth judicial division, as 
received at the governor's office from the election board, with the exception of 
the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit 1-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here a portfolio or bundle of papers identified 
as " Contestee's Exhibit J-2." I wish you would look at that and state what it 
contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the Bettles voting precinct. 
fourth judicial division, as received at the governor's office from the election 
board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not 
attached. 

Q. Everything else is there? — A. Yes. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit J-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I now hand you a bundle of papers attached together and marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit K-2." I wish you would state what that contains. — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from the Deadwood voting precinct, fourth judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election boai'd, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that exhibit in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit K-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a bundle of papers attached together and marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit L-2." Will you please look at that portfolio and stafe what 
it contains? — A. It contains the election returns from the Kenai voting pre- 
cinct, third judicial division, as received at the governor's office from the elec- 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 313 

tion board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are not 
attached. 

Mr. Heixenthal. I offer those in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. ' 

(Whereupon said Exhibit L-2 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received. 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio identified as " Contestee's Exhibit M-2." 
Will you please look at that and state what it contains? — A. It contains the 
election returns from the Mendenhall voting precinct, first judicial division, as 
received at the governor's office from the election board, with the exception 
of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer those in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit M-2 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here a portfolio marked " Contestee's Exhibit N-2," and ask 
you to look at that and state what it contains. — A. It contains the election re- 
turns from the incorporated town of Haines, first judicial division, as received 
at the governor's office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, 
which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit N-2 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, some papers attached together and 
marked " Contestee's Exhibit 0-2." I wish you would look at that and state 
what it contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the Bluff voting 
precinct, second judicial division, as received at the governor's office, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence.. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit 0-2 being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, I hand you here some papers attached and identified as 
" Contestee's Exhibit P-2." I wish you would look at that and state what 
that bundle of papers contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the 
Council voting precinct, second judicial division, as received at the governor's 
office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were re- 
ceived but are not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit P-2 being offered in evidence and no objection be- 
ing made thereto, the same was duly received. ) 

Q. I hand you here, Mr. Shorthill, papers attached together and marked for 
Identification as " Contestee's Exhibit Q-2." I wish you would look at that 
bundle and see what it contains. — A. It contains the election returns from Pil- 
grim River voting precinct, sometimes designated as Iron Creek, second judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, with the 
exception of the ballots, Avhich were received but not attached. 

Q. What is the name of the voting precinct, Mr. Shorthill? — A. Pilgrim 
River — that is the official name of the precinct. 

Q. There were no returns received from Pilgrim River except these returns 
you have just testified to? — A. No, sir. 

Q. And this " Pilgrim River," was that written on by the canvassing board? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. The returns as received were designated as being from Iron Creek? — A. 
Yes ; but the official designation of the precinct is Pilgrim River ; that is the 
way it appears in the commissioner's notice of the establishment of the precinct. 

Q. And you say no returns were received from the Pilgrim River precinct 
except -these, and these were counted as the Pilgrim River returns? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthax. We offer these in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit Q-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here some papers that have been attached together and marked 
on the outside " Contestee's Exhibit R-2." I wish you would look at those and 
state what that bundle contains. — A. It contains the election returns from the 



314 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

St. Michael No. 1 voting precinct, second judicial division, as received at the 
governor's office from the election board, with the exception of the ballots, which 
Avere received but not attached. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit R-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here some papers attached together and marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit S-2." Tell me what is contained in that package, please? — A. It con- 
tains the election returns from Wade Hampton No. 1 voting precinct, some- 
times "(Jesigoated as Willow Creek voting precinct, second judicial division, as 
received at the governor's office from the election board, with the exception of 
the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Q. These are marked Willow Creek, and the legion there " Wade Hampton 
No. 1" was also written on by the canvassing board? — A. Yes; the precinct is 
officially known as Wade Hampton No. 1. 

Q. The returns are marked Willow Creek? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There were no returns other than these received from Wade Hampton 
No. 1?— A. No, sir. 

Q. And these returns which are marked Willow Creek were counted as re- 
turns from Wade Hampton No. 1? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this exhibit in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit S-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. I hand you here some papers attached together and marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit T-2. I wish you would look at those and state what that package con- 
tains. — A. It contains the election returns from Wade Hampton No. 2 voting 
precinct, second judicial division, as received at the governor's office from the 
election board, with the exception of the ballots, which were received but are 
not attached.) 

Mr. Hellenthal. I offer this in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit T-2 being offered in evidence, and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, have all of the returns received from all the precincts in 
the second judicial division been offered in evidence?— A. Yes, sir; they have. 

Q. There are none in your possession or in the governor's office except those 
that have been offered in evidence and received? — A. No, sir; they have all 
been offered. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken until 10 o'clock of the following day.) 

MORNING SESSION, JULY 25, 1017, 10 O'CLOCK A. M. 

W. W. SHORTHILL on the witness stand. 

Direct examination (continued) by Mr. J, A. Hellenthal: 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, have you got with you the returns from Anchorage No. 1 
voting precinct? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you here a package of papers, marked and identified as " Contestee's 
Exhibit U-2," and I will ask you to state what that contains. — A. It contains 
the election returns from the Anchorage No. 1 voting precinct, third judicial 
division, as received at the governor's office from the election board, with the 
exception of the ballots, which were received, but are not attached. 

Q. This bundle of papers contains everything, with the exception of the 
ballots which v/ere received ? — A. Everything except the ballots ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer this in evidence. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said Exhibit LI-2, being offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was duly received.) 

Mr. Hellenthal. That is all ; you may cross-examine. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Cobb : 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, in testifying yesterday as to the Deering precinct, Con- 
testee's Exhibit B, you referred to some other papers that came in subse- 
quently? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you those papers? — A. I haven't them with me; they are at the 
office. 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEB. 315 

Q. What were those? — A. Well, there was an affidavit or two, I believe, 
with regard — an affidavit, I think, explaining why the official ballots were not 
used, as I recall it. 

Q. Can you get those? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I wish you would at the recess, and bring them in. Now, in regard to 
the Utica precinct, are all the papers of every kind in connection with that pre- 
cinct put in? — A. No ; only the papers that came in with the regular returns. 

Q. Were there any other papers received subsequently? — A. There was, I 
think ; the affidavit in reference to Deering also referred to Utica, as I recall ; 
or possibly there might have been a separate affidavit ; there may possibly have 
been some other papers referring to one or both of them; I am not sure of 
it now. 

Q. You can find those papers? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I wish you would do so. — A. Yes, sir, I will. 

Q. Now, in your testimony yesterday in the identification of the Fort Gib- 
bon, Seldovia, and a large list of other returns, you stated that all the returns 
were in with the exception of the ballots. I will ask you to state whether or 
not those ballots, so far as you know, are the regular official ballots. — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. There was never any question raised regarding those ballots? — A. Not so 
far as I recall ; I think they were official. 

Q. Now, in addition to the returns from the various precincts that have 
been received in evidence on behalf of the coutestee, have you in your custody 
at this time all the other returns sent in to the canvassing board from the 
various precincts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you those from judicial division No. 1? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you identify them? — A. I have them all in this package and a list 
of them, if you wish it. 

Q. Just read into the record the list of all the other returns from division 
No. 1. — A. Beaver Falls, Chichagoft", Chilcat (including five rejected ballots 
Avith letter of explanation from one of the judges of election in reference to 
these ballots), Dolomi, Douglas No. 1, Douglas No. 2, Gold Creek, Hadley, 
Hoonah, Jualin, Jualpa, Juneau No. 3, Kake, Ketchikan, Perseverance, Peters- 
burg, Salmon Creek, Scow Bay, Shakan, Sheep Creek. Sitka, Skagway, Sulzer, 
Tenakee, Treadwell. Windham, and Wrangell. I might add that these are the 
complete returns from each one of those precincts named, with the exception 
of the ballots, which were received but are not attached. 

Mr. Cobb. I now offer in evidence this package marked " Contestant's Ex- 
hibit No. 1." 

Mr. J. A. Hellenthal. Contestee objects to the offer made on the ground, 
first, that it is not proper cross examination ; and second, that there being no 
issue raised in reference to any of the election returns now offered in evidence 
the same are wholly irrelevant and immaterial. 

The Notary Public. They will be received in evidence subject to the objec- 
tion of Mr. Hellenthal. 

Q. I believe that you stated on yesterday that the entire returns from judicial 
division No. 2 of Alaska were already in? — A. Yes, sir; all of the original re- 
turns, with the exception of such incidental papers as might have come in 
afterwards, as stated. 

Q. And excluding the ballots that were sent in? — A. Excluding the ballots; 
yes. sir. 

Q. Have j^ou the balance of the returns for the election of 1916 from judicial 
division No. 3? — A, Yes, sir. [Produces them.] 

Q. You have a list of those precincts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you read them into the recoi'd? — A. Allen, Aleutian Island, Bonanza 
(Chitina recording district), Chignik, Chisana, Chitina. Copper Center, Cordova, 
Ellamar, Eyak, Gilpatrick (sometimes called Moose Pass), Girwood, Granby, 
Iliamna, Jumbo, Katalla, Kennecott, Knik, Kodiak, Latouche, Matanuska, 
McCarthy, IMoose Creek, NinilcJiic, Nizina, Ouzinkie, Roosevelt, Seward, Strelna, 
Sunrise. Susitna, Telkeetna, Unga, Valdez, Wassila, and Koggiung. In reference 
to Koggiung, there were no election returns received, but the election register 
and tally book and registration book Avere sent in by the United States com- 
missioner at Naknek with a note attached explaining why no judges were ap- 
pointed and no election held in the Koggiung precinct. 

Q. Those notes are all in the records — all in the returns? — A. Yes; it is just 
simply a note attached to one of tiie books. 

Q. Now, that is all of the pi'ecincts in the third division? — A. Yes, sir. 



316 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Mr. Cobb. Now we offer that package in evidence and ask that it be marked 
"Contestant's Exhibit No. 2." 

Mr. J. A. Hellenthal. On behalf of the contestee I object to the offer made 
on the ground, first, that it is not proper cross-examination ; and, second, that 
there being no issue raised in' the pleadings in reference to any one or more of 
these precincts from which the I'eturns now offered in evidence were received, 
the same are wholly irrelevant and immaterial. 

The Notary Public. Contestant's Exhibit No. 2 will be received in evidence 
subject to the above objection. 

Q. These returns that you have put in are all the complete returns received 
with the exception of the ballots ? — A. With the exception of the ballots ; 
yes, sir. 

Q. And the ballots accompanying them were all the regular official ballots? — 
A. Yes ; they were all official ballots, I think, as I recall it. I think all of the 
unofficial ballots have been taken in in the other precincts that were introduced 
yesterday. 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, have you in your custody all the balance of the returns 
from judicial division No. 4 that have not already been offered and received in 
evidence? — A. Yes, sir. (Produces them.) 

Q. Just state what they are. — A. The following precincts : Aniak, Brooks, 
Town of Chena, Chicken Creek, Circle, Coldfoot, Dikeman, Discovery, Eureka, 
town of Fairbanks, Fairbanks Creek, Flat, Fort Yukon, Franklin, Georgetown, 
Gilmore, Graehl, Greenstone, Hot Springs, town of Iditarod, Jackwade, Kan- 
tishna. Little Eldorado Creek, Long, Louden, Lower Cleary, Lower Dome, Miller 
House. Moose Creek, Nanana, Nulato, Ophir, Pedro, Poorman, Railroad, Ram- 
part, Richardson, Ruby, Steel Creek, Tokotna, Tolstoi Upper Dome, Upper 
Goldstream, West Fork, Wiseman, and Woodchopper (Circle recording dist- 
trict). The returns are all here with the exception of the ballots, which were 
received but are not included in the package of returns. 

Q. Those were all official ballots accompanying that list? — A. All official 
ballots ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cobb. We ask to have the package marked as "Contestant's Exhibit No. 
8," and offer it in evidence. 

Mr. J. A. Hellenthal. We object to the offer on the ground that it is not 
proper cross-examination ; and on the further ground that since no issues have 
been raised by the pleadings in reference to any one or more of the returns 
from the precincts now offered in evidence, the same are irrelevant and im- 
material. 

The Notary Public. The contestant's Exhibit No. 3 will be received subject 
to the above objection. 

Mr. Cobb. We will now close the examination of this witness with the privi- 
lege of recalling him for the purpose of identifying these papers about Deer- 
ing, etc. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We have no redirect examination now, but may want to 
examine him on the papers you have asked him to bring in. 

(Witness temporarily execused.) 

CHARLES E. DAVIDSON, a witness called on behalf of the contestee, 
Charles A. Sulzer, being first duly sworn, on oath testified in answer to ques- 
tions as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. J. A. Hellenthal : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Charles E. Davidson. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Juneau, Alaska. 

Q. What official position do you occupy in the Territory of Alaska, if any? — 
A. r am surveyor general and ex officio secretary of the Territory of Alaska. 

Q. Do you know Gov. Strong? — A. Yes. 

Q. He has been absent from the Territory for a month or two, has ne not? — 
A. He has. 

Q. During his absence you have been occupying the position of acting 
governor? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. W. Shorthill?— A. I do. 

Q. What position does he occupy? — A. He is private secretary to Gov. Strong. 

Q. As secretary to the governor he is the actual custodian who is in charge 
of the records and files of the governor's office? — A. Yes, sir; he is. 

Q. You are familiar with the election returns sent in to the governor's office 
from the various precincts in the Territory? — A. Yes. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 317 

Q. And you have looked over in a general way the returns that have been 
offered in evidence here? — A. Yes; in a general way. 

Q. Those returns are the returns sent in by the judges of the various 
precincts? — A. Yes. 

Q. And have been in the custody of the governor's office ever since their 
receipt? — A. Yes; they have been in the custody of the governor's office. 

Q. And Mr. Shorthill has had the direct supervision over the returns, and 
they have been under his direct care? — A. Yes, sir; they have. 

Q. As the secretary to the governor? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Cobb : 

Q. You were a member of the canvassing board, were you not? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. For the 1916 election. Now I will ask you to examine contestee's Exhibit 
A, Choggiung precinct. As a member of the canvassing board, were the returns 
from Choggiung precinct counted? 

Mr. J. A. Hellenthal. We object to that question as immaterial and not 
proper cross-examination, and I instruct the witness not to answer the question. 

Mr. Cobb. Does tbe witness decline to answer? 

The Witness. No ; I will answer the question. 

Mr. Cobb. Then answer it. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I instruct the witness not to answer the question. 

The Notary Public. I will let the answer go in subject to the objection of 
Mr. Hellenthal. The witness may answer if he wants to. 

A. No ; they were not counted in the final count. 

Q. Were they counted in the final count for any of the candidates who were 
voted for in that precinct? 

Mr. Hellenthal. We object to that question because it is not cross-examina- 
tion and is entirely irrelevant and immaterial. 

The Notary Public. The Avitness may answer, subject to the objection above 
noted. 

A. Yes ; they were counted for every one excepting Sulzer and Wickersham 
and, I think, Mrs. Lena Morrow Lewis. 

Q. Counted for all the other candidates except the candidates for Delegate 
to Congress? — A. Yes. 

Q. Why didn't the board canvass them for Delegate to Congress? 

Mr. Hellenthal. We object to that because it is not cross-examination, and 
also because it is irrelevant and immaterial, and for the further reason that 
it is an improper matter to inquire into what the motives were that actuated 
the board. 

The Notary Public. I am going to let the witness answer if he cares to 
answer, subject to Mr. Hellenthal's objection. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I instruct the witness he need not answer that question. 

The Notary Public. You need not answer the last question. 

(Whereupon the witness availed himself of the instruction and refused to 
answer the question.) 

Q. Now, I want to ask you one general question. Referring to the Deering 
precinct, contestee's Exhibit B ; Nushagak, Exhibit C ; Utica, Exhibit D ; Bonni- 
field. Exhibit E ; and Vault, Exhibit F, I will ask you if those returns were 
counted by the canvassing board? 

Mr. Hellenthal. Oh, I object to that as irrelevant and immaterial and not 
cross examination. 

The Notary Public. The Avitness may answer subject to the objection of Mr. 
Hellenthal. 

A. They were counted for everybody excepting the Delegate to Congress. 

Q. W^hy were they not counted for Delegate? 

Mr. Hellenthal. Oh, let him answer it. 

A. There were mandamus proceedings, and the court ruled that they should 
not be counted, and therefore they were not counted. 

Q. And that was the reason why they were not counted for Delegate? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. And the same thing applies to Choggiung? — A. The same thing to all of 
those that you mentioned. 

Mr. Cobb. That is all. 

Mr. Hellenthal. That's all. 
(Witness excused.) 

Charles E. Davidson, 



318 WICKEESHAM VS. SXJLZEB. 

W. W. Shoethill, recalled for further cross-examination, testified as follows : 
Cross-examination ( continued ) by Mr. Cobb : 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, have you the affidavits that you referred to that were sub- 
sequently sent in in reference to the Deering and Utica precincts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Referring first to the Deering precinct, have you that affidavit? — A. Yes. 

Q. I will ask A. Excuse me a minute until I explain. It is in the form 

of a certified copy of an affidavit from one of the judges of Deering, and the 
certificate of the judges of election at Utica, sent in to the governor's office by 
the clerk of the district court at Nome, with a letter of transmittal. It is not 
the original affidavit— it is the certified copy filed with him. 

Mr. Cobb. I ask to have it marked — the separate papers, including the letter, 
attached together and marked " Contestant's Exhibit No. 4 " and offer it in 
evidence. 

Mr. Hellenthal. Let me question Mr. Shorthill about that before it is 
offered. 

Mr. Cobb. Very well. 

Questions by Mr. Hellenthal : 

Q. Mr. Shorthill, these papers offered in evidence as contentant's Exhibit No. 
4 were sent to you, I understand, by the clerk of the upper court at Nome? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And were not sent to you by the election officers of any precinct? — A. No, 
sir ; they came in from the clerk of the district court at Nome. 

Q. And were received by you sometime in the month of what? — A. They wei"e 
received on April 4, I think. 

Q. April 4, 1917?— A. Yes, sir; I think that is the date. 

Q. Together with the letter of transmittal that is attached to the exhibit 
there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Qou never received any communication from the election judges in refer- 
ence to this matter ? — A. No ; no communication. 

Q. The communication came from the clerk of the court at Nome? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And that is all you received? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I now object to the offer made on the ground that these 
matters are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial ; and on the further ground 
that they are not the originals but merely copies purported to be certified to by 
the clerk of the court ; and on the further ground that the papers were not re- 
ceived from the election judges at any time, but were sent in by a third party 
and had no connection with the election board whatsoever. 

The Notary Public. Contestant's Exhibit No. 4 will be received in evidence 
subject to the formal objection entered. 

Mr. Cobb. That's all. 

Mr. Hellenthall. That's all. 

\V. W. Shorthill. 

(Witness excused.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken until 10 o'clock of the following day ; 
and on July 26, 1917, at 10 a. m. an adjournment was taken until July 27 at 
10 a. m. ; and at 10 a. m. of July 27 an adjournment was taken until 2.30 of the 
same day.) 

JULY 27, 1917, 2.30 P. M. 

J. W. BELL, called as a witness on behalf of contestee, being duly sworn, on 
oath testified in answer to questions as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. J. A. Hellenthal : 

Q. State your name. — A. J. W. Bell. 

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Bell? — A.. Juneau, Alaska. 

Q. What is your occupation and employment? — A. Clerk of the district court, 
iirst division of the Territory of Alaska. 

Q. As such clerk of the district court for the first division of the Territory of 
Alaska, have you in your possession records and files in the case of Charles A. 
Sulzer, and the Territory of Alaska on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, against 
the canvassing board? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Among those files have you the correspondence that passed between the 
canvassing board — some of the members of that board — on the one hand, and 
your office or the district judge on the other? — Yes, sir. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 319 

Q. Will you hand me the letter that was sent in and written by the can- 
vassing board in the first instance in relation to this case? 
(Witness hands letter to counsel.) 

Q. The paper that I hand you, entitled " In the District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau; The Territory of Alaska, on the 
relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, Relator and Plaintiff, v. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, 
Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, Defendants, No. 1593-A, and signed 
by J. F. A. Strong, Governor, and Charles E. Davidson, Surveyor General " — is 
that one of the communications you just referred to?— A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence, and ask that it be read into 
the record. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon, the said letter being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was read into the record by the witness as follows) : 

In the district court for the district of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. 
The Territory of Alaska, on the relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. 
Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. The Canvassing Board, for the Territory of 
Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, 
Defendants. No. 1593-A. The above named defendants, J. F. A. Strong and 
Charles E. Davidson, respectfully submit to this honorable court that, in addi- 
tion to the facts set forth in their original answer to the alternative writ, a 
protest against the counting of the votes of certain precincts in the different 
judicial divisions of Alaska was filed with the canvassing board on March 21, a 
copy of which is attached hereto, which sets forth in detail the precincts and 
the alleged irregularities charged in the protest, and it appears from the rec- 
ords of the canvassing board that irregularities of different kinds did actually 
exist in many of the voting precincts of the Territory, and the board, being 
without legal counsel, therefore begs to submit the protest herein referred to 
and respectfully ask to be instructed ns to what disposition the said board 
should make of said protest. J. F. A. Strong, governor; Charles E. Davidson, 
surveyor general. 

Q. That communication was filed with you in your oflice? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. By the parties by whom it is signed? — A. I'^es, sir. 
Q. And was made a part of the record of the cause by you? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. W^as there any reply to this communication on the part of the court? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you the reply there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is the letter entitled " United States District Court, First Division, Dis- 
trict of Alaska, Judge's Chambers, Juneau, March 22, 1917," and addressed to 
the Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor 
general, Juneau, Alaska, and signed by Robert W. Jennings, judge — is that the 
letter to which you refer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that also was filed in your oflice in the case? — A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Hellenthal. I offer that letter in evidence and ask to have it read into 
the record. 
Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon the said letter being offered in evidence and no objection being 
made thereto, the same was read in the record by the witness, as follows : ) 

United States district court, first division. District of Alaska, judge's cham- 
bers, Juneau ; Robert W. Jennings, judge ; March 22, 1917. Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 
governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general, of the Territory of 
Alaska, Juneau, Alaska : Gentlemen : At your request, as I am informed, the 
clerk of this court has brought to my attention a certain communication signed 
by you, in which you state that a protest has been filed with the canvassing 
board by Mr. Emery Valentine, of this city, suggesting the rejection of the votes 
of certain precincts cast at the last election for Delegate to Congress, and in 
which you state that the " board begs to submit the protest herein referred to 
and respectfully asks to be instructed as to what disposition the said board 
should make of said protest," and, in reply, I have to state : 

Your communication is entitled in the cause " The Territory of Alaska on the 
relation of Charles A. Sulzer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, v. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, 
Charles E. Davidson, and John F. Pugh, defendants, No. 1593." 

The above-entitled cause is a proceeding brought in this court for the issuance 
of a mandamus compelling you to reject^i. e., not count the return from certain 
precincts stated in the petition on account of certain alleged fatal defects — not 



320 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

irregularities, but defects — in the i-eturn from said precincts. An alternative 
writ of mandamus was issued and served upon you, and you were also enjoined 
from issuing the certificate of election to James Wickersham. To that alternative 
writ and the petition on which it was founded you have made answer, stating: 
" That the Territorial canvassing board did, on the 1st day of March, 1917, 
complete its canvass and compilation of the returns of the general election held 
in the Territory of Alaska on the 7th day of November, 1916, and that the ofB- 
cial tally sheets made up by the said board were duly totaled and checked, and 
that the same showed the following result of the vote for the several candidates 
for Delegate to Congress from Alaska: Lena Morrow Lewis, 1,346 votes; 
Charles A. Sulzer, 6,459 votes; and James Wickersham, 6,490 votes." (Par. 1.) 

And further : "That in pursuance of such action by the canvassing board, and 
prior to the service of the alternative writ of mandamus upon the members 
thereof, a certificate of election was prepared by said board for issuance to 
James Wickersham as Delegate to Congress from Alaska for the term begin- 
ning March 5, 1917 ; but that before said certificate had been signed and issued 
by the board the members thereof were served with the writ of mandamus 
herein." (Par. 2.) 

Your answer further avers that the allegations of fact made in the petition 
as to the reasons why the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Utica, Nushagak, 
Bonnifield, and Vault should not be counted were true, but that you considered 
that nevertheless said precincts should be counted and that you counted them. 

The plaintiff demurred to your answer and that brought up the question as to 
whether or not on your answer the certificate should be issued to Wickersham 
or Sulzer. 

It further appeared from your answer that you had no attorney. At the 
hearing on this demurrer Mr. Davidson was present in court and the court 
advised him to procure an attorney ; whereupon he stated : " Your honor, we 
have no interest in it any more than we would like the law point decided, and 
we have made our answer the best we could, and we have no other interest 
any more than to obey the orders of this court, whatever they may be." 

The court then heard argument on the demurrer in open court, and on 
the 20th day of March, 1917, in open court made and filed its order herein, 
sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff, and filed its written opinion, and you 
have been furnished with copies of said opinion. I endeavored to make that 
opinion as full and clear as I could. 

It appears that in the 6,490 votes which you have credited to James Wicker- 
sham, and in the 6,459 votes credited to Charles A. Sulzer, and in the 1,346 
votes credited to Lena Morrow Lewis, you counted votes from the precincts 
questioned in the petition and which the court has decided should be rejected, 
and in your answer you stated that you had completed the canvass. 

In view of the allegations of the answer and of Avhat Mr. Davidson stated 
in open court the court concluded that all other questions had been passed 
upon by you and that you had, indeed, completed your " canvass and compila- 
tion," and " that the official tally sheets made up by the board were duly 
totaled and checked." Now, you state in your communication to me that some 
private citizen has lately entered a protest of some kind and that there are 
some irregularities which have not entered into the case that has been heard 
before me, and on which I issued the alternative writ, and you ask my advice 
as to what you shall do. 

I would be very glad, indeed, to advise you if I were at liberty to do so, 
but occupying the position which I do occupy, i. e., being the judge before 
whom the cause is pending, it would be vei'y improper for me to take any such 
action. When a matter is pending in court the judge of that court is in no 
position to act as the legal adviser of one of the litigants, neither can he 
instruct them except through orders, judgments, and decrees duly made. I 
think, however, that I may say this much without transgressing the rules of 
propriety: The court will, if you so desire, treat your communication as an 
amended and supplemental answer. If you desire it to be so treated you 
should serve a copy thereof on the attorneys for the plaintiff. Yours, very 
respectfully, Robert W. Jennings, judge. Copies to Gov. Strong and Mr. 
Davidson. Filed in the district court. District of Alaska, first division, March 
22, 1917. J. W. Bell, clerk, by John T. Reed, deputy. 

Q. That communication was transmitted to Gov. J. F. A. Strong and to 
Charles E. Davidson, of the canvassing board? — A. Yes, sir; there is an affi- 
davit attached showing the delivery to the governor and to the surveyor 
general. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 321 

Q. I offer the affidavit in evidence, and ask to have it read into the record. 

Mr. Cobb. No objection. 

(Whereupon said affidavit having been offered in evidence and no objection 
being made thereto, the same was read into the record by the witness as 
follows) : 

In the district court for the District of Alaska, division No. 1, at Juneau. 
United States of America, Territory of Alaska, division No. 1, ss. I, .Tames 
F. Hurley, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say : That I .am a citizen 
of the United States of America, over the age of 21 years. That on the 22d 
day of March, 1917, at about 3.30 o'clock p. m. thereof, I served the foregoing 
and attached letter, dated March 22, 1917, from Robert W. Jennings, to Hon. 
J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general, of 
the Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, upon the therein named J. F. A. 
Strong, by handing to and leaving with George W. Folta, a clerk in the office of 
the said J. F. A. Strong, in Juneau, Alaska, a copy of the aforesaid letter, duly 
certified by J. W. Bell, clerk of the above-mentioned court, to be true and correct 
copy of said letter, and of the whole thereof. 

That on the 22d day of March, 1917, at about 4 o'clock p. m. thereof, I served 
the foregoing and attached letter, dated March 22, 1917, from Robert W. 
Jennings, to Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor, and Hon. Charles E. Davidson, 
surveyor general, of the Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, upon the therein 
named Charles E. Davidson by handing to and leaving with Arthur W. Fox, 
a clerk in the office of said Charles E. Davidson, in Juneau, Alaska, a copy of 
the aforesaid letter, duly certified to be a true and correct copy of said letter, 
and of the whole thereof, by J. W. Bell, clerk of the above-mentioned court. 

That I am not in anywise interested in the cause in the above-entitled court, 
referred to in said letter, said cause being entitled " The Territory of Alaska on 
the relation of Charles A. Sulzer and Charles A. Sulzer, Relator and plaintiff, v. 
The Canvassing Board for the Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, 
Charles E. Davidson and John F. Pugh, defendants, No. 1593-A," and that I am 
competent to be a witness therein. James F. Hurley. Subscribed and sworn to 
before me, this 22d day of March, 1917. John T. Reed, notary public in and 
for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Juneau, Alaska. My commission ex- 
pires March 6, 1918. (Seal.) 

Q. Was there any response to that letter from Gov. Strong and Surveyor 
General Davidson? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you also the reply among your files? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you whether the letter I now hand you, which is headed " Terri- 
tory of Alaska, Governor's Office, Juneau, March 23, 1917," and addressed to 
the Hon. Robert W. Jennings, and signed by J. F. A. Strong, governor, and 
Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general, members of the canvassing board, is 
the reply received by you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. I will offer that in evidence, and ask that it be read into 
the record. 

Mr. CoBB. No objection. 

(Whereupon said letter being offered in evidence and no objection being made 
thereto, the same was read into the record by the witness as follows) : 

Territory of Alaska, Governor's Office, Juneau, March 23, 1917 ; 61. Hon. 
Robert W. Jennings, judge. United States District Court, first judicial division, 
Juneau, Alaska. Dear Sir : The undersigned members of the Territorial can- 
vassing board beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 22, with 
reference to a communication addressed to you, in which it was stated that 
the canvasing board had been served with a document by Mr. Emery Valentine, 
of Juneau, protesting against the counting of certain specified election returns 
from various voting precincts in the four judicial divisions in Alaska, on 
the ground that the " district court holds that no document which was not 
inclosed with and forwarded to the governor's office as part of the original 
returns can be counted or taken into consideration by the board." 

The reason for the submission of this protest to you was set out in our com- 
munication above referred to and forwarded to you on March 22 by the above- 
named members of the board. 

In reply we wish to say that we merely asked to be instructed as to the 
proper method or procedure in disposing of the protest above referred to, and 
your reply seems to indicate that no attention should be paid to protests entered 
by private citizens as to alleged irregularities in election returns, and therefore 
it would seem that the above members of the canvassing hoard held erroneous 
views on this matter. You also state that the court will, if we so desire, treat 
13289—17 21 



322 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 



our communication of March 22 as an amendeQl and supplemental answer. We 
wish to advise you, therefore, that we have no desire to have you treat the 
communication in that manner, nor have we any other answer to make at this 
time, having, as we believe, performed only what we — though apparently erro- 
neously — believed was a simple duty. 

Finally, we wish to state distinctly and unqualifiedly that, having performed 
-what we believed to be our duty and in the interest of no candidate, we are 
without further interest in this matter. Respectfully, yours, J. F. A. Strong, 
governor ; Charles E. Davidson, surveyor general, members of canvassing board. 
Filed in the district court, district of Alaska, first division, March 2B, 1917. 
J. W. Bell, clerk. 

Q. That was the communication received in response to the previous letter 
from the Judge? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And so filed by the members of the canvassing board, who sent the com- 
munication to your office? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hellenthal. That is all ; you may cross-examine. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Cobb : 

Q. Mr. Bell, have you there the protest that accompanied the letter of the 
governor and surveyor general to the judge of the district court? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cobb. I will offer that in evidence and ask that it be read into the record. 

Mr. Hellenthal. We have no objection to that going in. 

(Whereupon said protest was read into the record by the witness as follows, 
having been offered in evidence and no objection being made thereto : ) 

To the governor, surveyor general, and collector of customs, constituting the 

canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska. 

Sirs : The district court of this division having construed the election law to 
require the board to disregard election returns which fail to contain the various 
documents provided for by law, I protest against the counting of the following 
returns for the reasons below more specifically set out, to wit : 



Precinct. 



Defects in return. 



FIRST DIVISION. 

Beaver Falls 

Craig 

Chicgagoff 

Chilkat 

Douglas No. 1 

Dolomi 

Tenakee 

Gold Creek 

Hoonah 

Hadley 

Juneau No. 1 

Jualpa 

Loring 

Perseverance 

Sheep Creek 

Sitka 

Sulzer 

Treadwell 

SECOND DIVISION. 

Council 

St. Michael No. 1 

THIRD DIVISION. 

Anchorage No. 1 

Chignik 

Chitina 

Girdwood 

Katalla 

La Touche 

Moose Creek 

Naknek 



No register of voters. 

No register of voters. Judges of election not sworn. 

No register of voters. 

Conflict between certificate of result and ballots cast. 

No register of voters. 

Judges not sworn. 



No register of voters. 



No register of voters. 

No register of voters. 
Do. 

No register of voters. 

No register of voters. 

No certificate of result of election. 

Judges not sworn. 

No certificate of result forwarded with return or constituting a part thereof 
whatever. Certificate was filed separately and subsequently to the can- 
vassing of the returns by the board. Election returns not sworn to. Judges 
not sworn. 



Judges not sworn. 

No election register. 



No register of voters. 
No register of voters. 
No register of voters. 
Judges not sworn. 
No election register. 



Judges not sworn. 



No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 
Do. 



Judges of election not sworn. No registration of voters. No register of voters. 

No registration of voters. 
Do. 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No register of voters and no registration. 

No registration of voters. Certificate signed by only two judges. 

No registration of voters. Judges not sworn. 

No oflficial ballots used. Voters did not either write or print their own ballots, 
but the ballots were printed for them by the Democratic candidate for 
Delegate. No certificate showing the facts which prevented the use of 
official ballots. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 



323 



Precinct. 


Defects in return. 


THIRD DI\^SION— conid. 


No registration of voters. 
Judges not sworn. No re 
No registration of voters. 
No registration of voters. 
Do. 

No regisxration of voters. 

No registration of voters. 
Do. 

No registration of voters. 

No registration ot voters. 

No registration of voters i 

Judges not sworn. 

No registration of voters. 

No register of voters. 

No registration of voters. 

No register of voters. 

No registration of voters. 

No registration of voters 
certificate of result inc 
ballots were used filed 
the time canvassing boa 

No registration of voters. 




Ouzinlcie 


gistration of voters. 




Judges not sworn. 


Valdez 








FOi;RTn DIVISION. 


Judges not sworn. 


Circle 


Fort Yukon 




Fort Gibbon. 


No notice or order of election. 


Gilmore 


Judges not sworn, 
lor any register of voters. Judges not sworn. 




Little Eldorado 


Long 


No register of voters. 






Nenana 


Judges not sworn. 


Nulato 




Ophii- 




Tokotna 

West Fork 


. No register of voters. Judges not sworn. No 
uded with return. No certificate why nonofficial 
«'ith return as a part thereof. No return on file at 
rd convened. 
No register of voters. Judges not sworn. 





It will be observed that the district court holds that no document which was 
not inclosed with and forwarded to the governor's office as a part of the original 
return can be counted or taken into consideration by the board. In many cases 
efforts were made by the board and the attorney general to secure amended 
returns and in many of those cases supplemental and amendatory documents 
were filed. All of these should, under the decision of the court, be disregarded. 
It will be observed that the reasons which influenced the court to hold that the 
returns from Vault should be disregarded by the board also are applicable to 
Precinct No. 1 of Juneau and other precincts. 

I make this protest as a friend of Hon. James Wickersham and in interests 
of public justice, in my capacity as a citizei;! of the United States and of the 
Territory of Alaska. Very respectfully, Emery Valentine. Dated at Juneau, 
Alaska, this 21st day of March, A. D. 1917. 

Mr. Cobb. That's all. 

Mr. Hellenthal. That's all. 

(Witness excused.) 

J. W. Bell. 

I., G. C. Winn, the notary public above named, do further certify that the 
above and foregoing constitutes a true and correct record of the proceedings 
had before me, and that all of the said proceedings were had in the presence of 
both parties represented by counsel, as above stated. 

In witness whereof. I have hereunto affixed my name and official seal this 
14th day of August, 1917. 

[SEAL.] G. C. Winn, 

Notary Puhlic in and for the Territory of Alaska. 

My commission expires July 22, 1921. 

The United States of America, 

District of Alaska, Division No. 1, ss. 
I, the undersigned, clerk of the district court for the District of Alaska, 
division No. 1, do hereby certify that at the date of the execution of the above 
instrument in writing, G. C. Winn, residing at Juneau, Alaska, was a duly 
commissioned, qualified, and acting notary public within and for the District 
and Territory of Alaska, United States of America, with power to take acknowl- 
edgments necessary for the conveyance of real estate and to administer oaths. 
In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand and affixed the seal of the 
court hereto this 15th day of August, A. D. 1917. 

SEAL.] J. W. Bell, 

Clerk District Court of Alaska, Division No. 1, 
By John T. Reed. 

Deputy. 



324 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Pursuant to a notice dated at Ketchikan, Alasl5;a, on the 2d day of July, 
1917, and the said notice being attaclied hereto, the undersigned notary public 
did, at the place mentioned in the said notice, proceed to take the said deposi- 
tions. 

Mr. Harvey Sellers appeared in behalf of the contestee, Charles A. Sulzer, 
and Hon. .James Wickersham appeared per se. 

The following oath was taken by each witness : 

" You do solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give in 
the matter of the contest between James Wickersham. contestant, and Charles 
A. Sulzer, contestee, now pending before the House of Representatives of the 
Congress of the United States, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help me God." 

The following-named witnesses appeared, were sworn, and testified : C. E. 
Hibbs, Mrs. C. E. Hibbs or Winifred Hibbs, Rev. E. E. Bromley, R. J. Perato- 
vich, C. D. Calhoun, and George Demmert. 

That the attached papers consisting of forty -four (44) pages, written in long- 
hand and subscribed by the witnesses, is all of the testimony taken at said 
hearing and is a full and complete record of the said hearing, together with 
contestant's Exhibit A. 

Dated at Ketchikan, Alaska, this 31st day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] AVill H. Winston, 

'Notary Public for Alaska. 

C. E. HIBBS : 

Q. What is your name? — ^A. C. E. Hibbs. 

Q. Are you the same party as set out as C. E. Hibbs in this subpoena?. — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. Since September, 1914. 

Q. Were you residing there at the time of the last election, 1916? — A. I was. 

Q. Where is your voting precinct? — A. Craig, Alaska. 

Q. What is your occupation? — A. United States Government teacher. 

Q. Whei-e at?— A. Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. What school? — ^A. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education over 
the Native Schools. 

Q. That includes Klawock? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you at Craig the last election and voted here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, I want to know if you know these people whose names I read 
[reading] : C. W. Demmert? — A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. Emma Demmert, Spencer Williams, George Demmert, Jack Perotovich, 
R. J. Perotovich, Jas. Perotovich, William Jones, .John Darrow, J. S. Johnson, 
Donald Kathlean, Maxfield Daklin, Lee Anneskit, George Roberts, Henry Rob- 
erts. George Fields, Peter Wilson, J. K. Williams, .John Skan, Fred Williams, 
Roy Williams, Richard Collins, A. W. Thomas, Sam Gunyah, Arthur James, 
William Gunyah, Albert Thomas, James Rowen, Peter Scott, Jimmie Jackson. 

Q. Do you know all these people? — A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known them?— A. I have known all of them since 
coming to Klawock, 1914. 

Q. What way do you know them? — A. I have been intimately acquainted with 
them, socially in store work, village work, church work and every phase of the 
village work and society. 

Q. Are they natives of Alaska? — A. They consider themselves such, yes; they 
are all of them born within the Territory, I think. 

Q. Can they read, write, and speak the English language? — A. Yes, they can; 
all of them. 

Q. Have they severed their tribal relations? — A. Yes, they have. Since I 
have been in the village of Klawock there has been no semblance of any ti'ibal 
relationship in a village of 300. 

Q. Are they living a civilized life, same as white people? — A. They are. 

Q. Were those people here at last election, November 7, 1916. — A. We all 
came up on the same boat. 

Q. Did they vote at that election here at Craig? — A. They did not. 

Q. Why didn't they vote? — A. They were told by the judge that they would 
not be allowed to vote. 

Q. Did they offer themselves to vote? — A. Not all of them. There were three 
or four that went into the polls to vote and they were told that they could not 
vote, so the others did not go in. 



WICKEJISHAM VS. SULZEE. 325 

Q. What reasons were they given that they could not vote? — A. Because they 
were Indians. 

Q. Do you know whether tliey ever voted before? — A. I think all of them 
have. Two years ago practically all those that were able to read and write in 
the village came up with me and voted. 

Q. What kind of business are these people engaged in? — A. Do you want me 
to give the business of each one individually or generalize? 

Q. Where you can, you can group the business. — A. C. W. Demmert is a 
former merchant, at present engaged in the Ashing industry, having bought the 
buildings and old cannery equipment at Kuim Islands. Emma (his wife), 
Spencer Williams, Jack Perotovich, James Perotovich, William Jones, John 
Darrow, George Roberts, George Fields, Peter Wilson, Roy Williams, Richard 
Collins, Sam Gunyah, Arthur James, William Gunyah, Albert Thomas, James 
Rowen, Peter Scott, Jimmie Jackson, Donald Kathlean, are all fishermen. 
George Demmert is clerk and manager of the Klawock Commercial Co. 
R. J. Perotovich, proprietor of general store and moving picture establishment. 
J. S. Johnson, boat builder. Henry Roberts, gas-boat engineer. J. K. Williams, 
carpenter. John Skan, seine maker. Andrew Thomas, boat builder and a 
minister. Maxfleld Daklin, proprietor of a pool hall. Lee Anneskit, gas-boat 
engineer. Fred Williams has just received an honorable discharge from the 
United States Navy and at present fishing. 

Q. What kind of government have these people at Klawock? — A. We have 
organized under the laws enacted by the legislature two years ago, allowing 
native villages to organize. Ours being the first village to incorporate under 
this law. 

Q. What is the nature of your corporation and what part do the natives take 
in it? — A. It could better be answered by reading the enactment, but the sub- 
stance of it is that all native villages with a population of 40 or more persons 
petitioning may receive a charter or authority for self-government whereby 
they can elect their own officers, levy and collect taxes, enforce their laws, the 
condition being that they give up all tribal relations. 

Q. This has been done has it? — A. It has; yes, sir. 

Q. They have a cooperative store there? — A. Yes, sir; they have. 

Q. Explain the nature of it and what part the natives have in it. — A. It is a 
store organized by the native people. They supply all of the stock, elect their 
own directors, a clerk and manager of the store. At present the Government 
teacher is taking care of the books and doing the buying, his books being 
audited once a year by a representative of the Bureau of Education to see that 
everything is conducted legitimately and make it a safe investment for the 
natives. 

Q. Have you a Brotherhood and a Sisterhood literary society there? — A. 
There are three separate organizations. The Brotherhood, a fraternal organiza- 
tion among the men ; the Sisterhood, a ladies' organization ; the literary, an 
educational society for the whole village. 

Q. The names of the people who were mentioned before, are they connected 
with these societies? — A. I think they are connected with one or more. 

Q. Are they connected with the cooperative store? — A. Part of them are and 
part of them are not. 

Q. How do they live and what kind of houses do they live in? — A. Why, 
they — every house in the village is a frame house. They live the same as all 
people that I have been associated with. The store handles the same merchan- 
dise, furniture, and things that all stores handle. Practically all sold to the 
native people. 

Q. Have they any church societies? If so, what part do these natives take 
in them? — A. They have two church organizations there; two church buildings, 
both buildings being owned and built by the natives themselves. The Presby- 
terian Church has a missionary in charge of the work there. The Salvation 
Army is conducted solely by the natives themselves. 

Q. The names of these Indians; are they full-blooded Indians or half-breeds? 
The names of these people, rather? — A. There are seven of them that I know 
to be half-breeds. 

Q. Name them. — A. C. W. Demmert, Emma Demmei't, Jack Peratovich, R. 
J. Peratovich, James Peratovich, William Jones, George Fields. The others are 
Indians or more or less mixed. 

Q. You' brought all of these people down here to vote November last. — A. No ; 
I did not bring them, I came with them. They furnished the gas boat. 

Q. Were you with them before? — A. Before they came? 



326 WICKERSHAM VS. S^LZER. 

Q. Were you with them the election previous to this?— A. Yes; I was. They 
furnished the boat and we all came down together. 

Q. Do they elect their own officers and are they familiar with voting? — A. 
Oh, yes. 

Q. And they can all read and write the English language and are fairly 
educated? — A. They are. 

Q. Did you discuss the election \vith them or they with you before you 
came over? In your presence? — A. Just previous to the time we got here. 

Q. The election of Delegate? The election of November 7, 1916?— A. Those 
things were discussed in a general way, I suppose ; there was no general dis- 
cussion on them. The only definite general discussion on the election with the 
people of Klawock was the Sunday previous. A meeting was called in the 
Presbyterian Church on Sunday afternoon, at which Mr. Bromley — -Rev. 
Bromley — and myself discussed the liquor question with them. 

Q. If you know, state how they intended to vote on the Delegate question. 

(Objection by Mr. Wickersham that it is hearsay and not possible for the 
witness to know how an elector Avould vote in the booth when marking his 
ticket and not the best evidence. ) 

A. Not all of them have discussed or have talked to me, but all who have 
were favorable to Mr. Sulzer. 

Q. Can you take this list and say how many, without naming them, would 
vote for Mr. Sulzer? 

(Objection by Mr. Wickersham renewed.) 

A. I am positive that more than 20 would have voted for Mr. Sulzer. 

Q. Do you know where these people are, and if we can get at them? — A. I 
know what cannery they are fishing for, excepting one. 

Q. Is this the fishing season? — A. It is. The fishing season is right at its 
height now. 

Q. And they are all scattered and busy? — A. There are some of them that 
have been out on the fishing grounds for more than two weeks. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Mr. Hibbs, with whom are you engaged? — A. The Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Education, Alaska Division. 

Q. What is /our official designation or title? — A. United States Government 
teacher. 

Q. When Avere you first employed as such in Alaska? — A. 1912. 

Q. Where were you first located? — A. Hydaburg, Alaska. 

Q. When did you first come to Klawock? — A. September, 1914. 

Q. You say that Klawock is incorporated under the act of the legislature 
approved April 27, 1915. and entitled "An act to define and establish the political 
status of certain native Indians within the Territory of Alaska." I now show 
you a copy of that act and ask you if that is the act you mean? — A. No, sir; 
this is not the act. 

Q. What act did you have reference to? — A. An act allowing certain native 
villages to organize, a synopsis of which I gave in my answer to the former 
attorney or examiner. 

Q. Do you know when that act was passed? — A. I do not know the exact 
date. It was passed by the legislature held in Juneau, 1915. I believe that 
is the date. 

Q. At the same legislature which passed this act which I showed you? — A. 
Yes, sir ; at the same legislature. 

Q. Have any one or more of the natives you have mentioned here to-day also 
complied or attempted to comply with the provisions of the act to define and 
establish the political status of certain native Indians within the Territory of 
Alaska, approved April 27, 1915, which I now show you? 

(Objection by Mr. Sellers that the same is immaterial.) 

A. No ; none of them have. 

Q. Is Klawock an old Indian village? — A. I think that it is. 

Q. How old? — ^A. I think more than 25 years. 

Q. How many white people live there? — A. About seven, I think, now, have 
their homes there. 

Q. Who are those seven ?^ — A. The missionary and his family are four, the 
Government teacher and his wife two ; one white man married to a native woman. 
' Q. Under the law this village is controlled entirely by the natives? — A. Yes, 
sir. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 327 

Q. Why are there not more white men there? — A. They have been moving out 
from time to time the last fe%v years. 

Q. Are more wliite men permitted to come there and locate? — A. That is 
wholly up to the town council. 

Q. The town council being natives? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All these Klawock people, except these few you mentioned, are full-blooded 
Alaska Indians, are they not? — A. Not all — they are full-blood or breeds; they 
are more or less mixed. 

Q. But they have lived there for 25 years, as Indians, have they not? — A. A 
part of them have, within the last few years — I will say three or four years. 
Many new families have moved in and are moving in for school fajcilities. 

Q. The school maintained there is one known as an Indian school and is 
maintained by the United States, is it not?^ — A. It is maintained by the United 
States, but is under the Bureau of Education and not under the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. 

Q. Do you not know that no Indian school in Alaska is maintained under 
the Bureau of Indian Alfairs? — A. There is none maintained under the Bureau 
of Indian Alfairs that I know of. 

Q. Well, is it not true that all Indian schools in Alaska, including that at 
Klawock, are maintained by the United States under the control of the Bureau 
of Education? — A. All native schools of Alaska are maintained by the Bureau 
of Education, the Department of the Interior. 

Q. Why do you not answer that question as it is asked? — A. I think that I 
have. 

Q. I asked you if it is not true that all Indian schools in Alaska, including 
that at Klawock, are maintained by the United States under the control of 
the Bureau of Education. Won't you please answer that question? 

Mr. Sellers. I object, because I think that it is immaterial as I think that 
the witness has already answered. 

A. My answer answered that perfectly, except that I used the word native 
instead of Indian, because our department does not designate between the 
natives of Alaska whether they be Indians or Eskimos. 

Q. Well, the Klawocks are not Eskimos, are they? — A. They are not. 

Q. Then they are Indians, are they not? — A. They are. 

Q. Now, the United States also maintains public schools outside of towns, 
incorporated by the whites, such as Juneau, Ketchikan, and the like, for the 
education of white children; is that correct?' — A. They may. The Bureau of 
Education maintains the same kind of schools in the South. 

Q. Do you or do you not know, Mr. Hibbs. that the United States also 
maintains public schools outside of towns incorporated by the whites such as 
Juneau, Ketchikan, and the like for the education of white children separate 
and apart from those maintained for the education of Indians such as that at 
Klawock? — A. I think that they do. 

Q. Of all those people from Klawock which you have named, which one or 
more of them actually offered to vote on November 7. 1916. and were you pres- 
ent and heard him- ask for a ticket and demand the right to vote? — A. My 
answer will necessarily be a little long. When the boat landed that brought 
the people from Klawock, a number of the people from Klawock, including 
myself, went immediately to the polls. Among these that I distinctly remember 
were C. W. Demmert, Emma Demmert, R. J. Peratovich, and John Darrow. I 
was standing near the table when C. W. Demmert sat down in the chair at the 
table to register and was told that he could not vote. A general discussion 
followed, more of the people from Klawock came in and the judges told me, they 
told C. W. Demmert. and all the Indians present that no Indian would be 
allowed to vote. No others went forward and personally offered themselves, 
as it was entirely useless. 

Q. Is there a tract of land marked off at Klawock by order of the Govern- 
ment or any official for the use of the Klawocks? — A. There is. 

Q. How large a reservation is it? — A. It comprises a small island. I should 
judge a square mile in extent. 

Q. By what authority was this Indian reservation created and when? — A. It 
is not an Indian reservation. It is not thus designated in the proclamation 
issued by Woodrow Wilson, but is a tract of land set aside by request 
of the Bureau of Education for the use of the Bureau of Ediication and the 
natives of Alaska and was set aside in 1913, I believe. 



328 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. But it is a tract of land used exclusively for the education and homes 
of the Klawock Indians, is it not? — A. The Indians that reside at Klawock. 
They are moving in from Shakan, Karheen, Kake, and other villages. 

Q. Did you know the father of Jack Peratovich and the two other men of 
that name? — A. I did. 

Q. In what country was he born? Italy? — A. I think he was a native of 
Austria. 

Q. Do you know whether he became a naturalized citizen of the United 
States or not? — A. I can say that I do know, for I have been told by good 
authority. I have never seen his naturalization papers. I consider that a fair 
answer. 

Q. All you know about his having been naturalized is what some person 
told you, is it? — A. In the discussion of the election afterwards his iwo sons 
told me that their father was a naturalized citizen and that their mother had 
his papers. 

Q. Is that all that you know about it? — A. That is all that I know about it. 
Their mother lives in the village and I had always supposed that the papers 
could be gotten if they were wanted. 

Q. Do you know whether the papers are his first or his final papers? — A. I 
do not. 

Q. You mentioned that six or eight of these named by you are half-breeds. 
Do you know whether their fathers were citizens or not? — A. Personally I 
know that one of them was. The father of C. W. Demmert, who offered to 
vote, was a veteran of the Civil War. He just died in the State of Wash- 
ington in a veteran's home, and the papers were sent up and are now in an 
attorney's hands giving his property and the pension due to C. W. Demmert. 

Q. Do you know anything about the citizenship of any others? — A. No; I 
do not. 

Q. How long were you Government school-teacher at Hydaburg? — A. Almost 
two years. I was assistant there. 

Q. Do you know where the Hydaburg Indians came from? 

Mr. Selleks. I object to that as immaterial. 

A. I know nothing of the Hydaburg Indians except that they came from the 
villages of Howkan and Klingquan. That they had asked the bureau to be 
removed to a new location. 

Q. Do you not know that either those now at Hydaburg or their fathers 
and mothers came from the Queen Charlotte Islands? — A. I do not. I have 
been told that the Hyda Indians came from British Columbia. 

Q. That is, from Queen Charlotte Islands? — A. It may be; I do not know. 

Q. Do you know that 35 or more of those British Columbia Indians voted 
for Mr. Sulzer at the town of Sulzer at the election last November 7th? A. 
I do not. 

(Objection to the question by Mr. Sellers. That it is incompetent and 
immaterial. That we are not trying the Sulzer vote here and has no bearing 
on this case or on this hearing.) 

Q. Well, are you not as well acquainted with the Hydaburg Indians and 
their actions in this recent election as with those at Klawock? 

( Same objection by Mr. Sellers. ) 

A. I am not. I spent less than two years at Hydaburg and only assistant 
teacher there. Personally I do not know a single Hyda born outside of the 
United States. 

Q. Well, do you know where any of them over 21 years of age were born 
of your own knowledge? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to the question as to any of the natives not mentioned 
in thi.s hearing, as it has no bearing on this hearing. 

A. I can answer that as I have answered some previously. 

Q. That somebody told you? — A. Yes. I have only been in the Territory 
five years so I can not swear as to anyone born before that. 

Q.' Who challenged Demmert's vote on November 7 last? — A. Mr. Hal Gould, 
I think, was the one that told him that he could not vote. Mr. Fred Butler 
and J. P. Smith were the ones who did the arguing. 

Q. Is it not true that either Butler or Smith ol>jected to his vote and the 
election officers sustained the objection? Is that what happened? — A. No, sir; 
Mr. Hal Gould told Mr. Demmert he could not vote, and in behalf of Mr. Dem- 
mert and the natives in general I asked for the reason and the argument fol- 
lowed. Butler and Smith took active part. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 329 

Q. Who were the election officers? — A. Hal Gould. John Lindsay, J. N. 
Coker. 

Q. Who appointed these election officers? — A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you know who is commissioner and ex ofllcio justice of the peace in 
the Craig- precinct? — A. I do. 

Q. What is his name? — A. Charles Fox. 

Q. Do you know who appointed him? — A. Appointed by the governor, I 
think. No ; he is appointed by the district judge, not the governor. 

Q. Who is the district judge iu this division who appointed him? 

Mr. Sellers. I object because it is immaterial, and I move that all questions 
along that line be stricken because it does not make any difference who the 
judges were or who appointed them, and for the further reason that it has no 
hearing on the legality of those voting. 

A. Judge Jennings is the district judge. I do not know whether Fox re- 
ceived his appointment from him or previous to that, as Fox has been com- 
missioner since I have had anything to do with the commissioner in this Terri- 
tory. 

Q. Do you not know that Judge Jennings and Commissioner Fox and these 
election officers are all Democrats and friends and supporters of Mr. Sulzer? — 
A. I do not. I know that Mr. Fox is a friend of Mr. Sulzer. Mr. Jennings I 
know nothing of whatever. 

Q. What do you know about the election officers? They are Democrats, are 
they not? — A. I think Mr. Coker is. The other two I do not know. I have 
never discussed politics with either of them. 

Q. Mr. Fox is a Democrat, is he not? — ^A. I think he is. 

Q. You are a Democrat, are you not? — A. No, sir; I am independent; I do 
not affiliate with any party. 

Q. Did you vote the Democratic ticket last fall? 

(Objection by Mr. Sellers that it is incompetent.) 

A. I don't believe that it is necessai-y for me to go into my political views. 

Q. You are not ashamed of them, are you? 

Mr. Sellers. I do not think that is fair. 

A. I am not ashamed of them, but I do not think that it is necessary. 

Q. You were a strong supporter of Mr. Sulzer, were you not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you furnish the list of witnesses in this case? — A. I did: yes, sir. 

Mr. Sellers. I object to the encumbering the recoi'd by such questions. 

Q. And you have been very active in gathering the witnesses and presenting 
the witnesses in Mr. Sulzer's behalf, have you not? — A. I have been very active 
in gathering these witnesses because I believe in the enfranchisement of the 
natives. I began this fight the next day after election. 

Q. But is it not true that you appealed to Mr. Sulzer's friends for support 
and are trying to get credit only for those natives whom you contend would 
have voted for him ? — A. No, sir ; that is not true. 

Q. Do you know of any of the witnesses named by you who would have 
voted for me? — A. I do not. 

Q. What State did you come from. Mr. Hibbs? — A. My native State was 
Iowa ; I spent most of my life in Kansas — more than 20 years in Kansas. 

Q. Where were you appointed from? — A. Bellevue, Wash. 

Q. Do you know of any money having been used in gathering the information 
relating to this hearing in any way, shape, or manner? — A. I know nothing 
about it whatever. 

Q. No part of your expense has been paid? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Does the Bureau of Education permit the Government school-teachers to 
take part in partisan politics as you have? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to this question so as not to encumber the record, and 
I want now to object to any question along any lines other than to the legality 
or illegality of the voters. I want my objections to run to all these questins. 

A. I have taken no part in party politics and ask permission of the court 
to qualify my statement, if I may. Since I have been in Alaska the past 
five years, the natives who are able to read and write, and that are known 
to have laid aside all tribal relations, have been allowed the right of fran- 
chise. When the law passed two years ago. allowing a certificate of citizen- 
ship to natives of Alaska, I asked Supt. Beattie what effect it would have 
on the rights of the natives, and he told me that it would have none whatever. 
That it only allowed natives a proof of citizenship that they could take 
advantage of if they wished. Prior to the election last fall I asked Mr. 



330 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Sulzer, when he was through, and as he was instrumental with Mr. Beattie 
in getting this bill through, he told me the same thing. I afterwards took 
up the matter with Superintendent Hawkesworth, and he told me that in a 
conversation with Mr. Wickersham, Mr. Wickersham had told him that the 
natives had a right to vote. I came to Craig with no thought of native votes 
being challenged, and when they were I asked permission of the judges for 
permission to swear in just one vote to make a test case of it. This was 
refused. I felt then, as I do yet, that this is an injustice to the native, and while 
I have already stated that I am a friend and a supporter of Sulzer, I have 
not in any way made this a personal or political fight. But from the position 
that I am in and the duties involving on me, I hold it a sacred duty to see 
this fought to a finish. If the natives have not the right to vote, I do not 
want to be wasting my eiforts in trying to get them to vote. If it is their 
privilege to vote, then I want to see it granted, regardless of who they vote for. 

Q. Well, if that is your view, why don't you proceed in the way pointed out 
by the Legislature of Alaska in the other act provided for their benefit, being 
the act entitled, "An act to define and establish the political status of certain 
native Indians within the Territory of Alaska," approved by the governor of 
Alaska April 27, 1915, whereby you could accomplish what you say you want 
without mixing up in partisan politics as you now are? — A. Because I do not 
believe from our Federal laws and what other information I am able to 
obtain that this is necessary, and it only incurs a great amount of expense 
on each native taking advantage of it ; and, therefore, if it is not a duty in 
order to become a citizen, then I leave the question entirely with the native. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that the ofliicials of the Bureau of Education 
in Alaska do not intend to follow the act of the legislature in this matter, 
but approve your course in intruding these questions into political fights, 
without regard to the law as passed by the legislature? — A. The Bureau of 
Education has nothing to do with that part of it, and the only way to get 
these matters pi'operly settled is by going to the polls. 

Q. Blit you know, do you not, that if the native would comply with the act 
of the legislature mentioned, he could not be prevented from voting in Alaska 
and no objection would be made to his vote? — A. I know that. I also know 
that no law of our Territorial Legislature can supersede a Federal law ; there- 
fore it is a matter for the native himself to decide whether he wants to apply 
for a certificate of citizenship or not. 

Q. Then you think the native may disregard the act of the legislature and 
vote whenever he or the Government school-teacher thinks he ought to do so. 
Is that your idea? — A. No, sir; not in the least. 

Q. Well, you think that you may disregard the act of the legislature, do you 
not? — A. I do not consider this a disregard of the act' of the legislature. The 
Federal law establishes the political status of the native because of the derision 
in which the native is held by many, this law allowing him a certificate of 
citizenship is, as it reads, simply a proof of citizenship. When he is where he 
is known personally and can prove his citizenship, then it is not necessary. It 
is simply a privilege that he may accept if he wants. 

Q. Do you advise the natives that way? — A. I do. 

Q. You advise them they need not comply with that act of the legislature?— 
A. Yes, sir ; unless they wish. I show them the advantages of it and leave it 
entirely to their judgment. 

Q. Why do you not advise them to obey the laws that are passed for their 
benefit, such as this one was? — A. I believe that I have answered that question 
in three previous answers. 

Mr. Sellers. I object to this as incompetent and as not the proper cross- 
examination. 

Q. Mr. Hibbs, you will admit that if the Indian took advantage of this act of 
the legislature and secured the order of the judge of the district court of Alaska, 
it would leave no doubt of his status as a citizen of the United States, do 
you ? — A. Certainly I know that ; but it is vmnecessary, as I before said. 

Q. Then why do" you think the Legislature of Alaska passed and Gov. Strong 
approved that act? — A. For the same reason that I gave awhile ago for the rea- 
son that those who wish to take advantage of it when they are going among 
strangers. 

Q. Suppose you should be mistaken about this, you would do the Indian a 
great injury. — ^A. That is the reason that I am in this matter, so that.it will 
be decided by our courts as I want to know. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 331 

Q. While this witness is on the stand, and as a part of his cross-examination, 
I offer a printed official copy of the act of legislature entitled "An act to define 
and establish the poltical status of certain native Indians within the Territory 
of Alaska." approved April 27, 1915, and ask to have it filed, marked, and 
attached to the deposition. 

Mr. Sellees. I object to the introduction of it for the reason that it is 
incompetent. 

Q. Mr. Hibbs, do you not realize that if you were to advise the Indians to 
comply with that act of the legislature it would enable each of them to have 
his status settled as a citizen judicially and finally and save all question 
thereafter as to the citizenship of his parents or whether he was born in 
British Columbia and all such questions? — A. I could not conscientiously 
advise them because our distance from the judge and the time and 
cost in getting to the judge is so great and as I do not believe 
and have been advised by good authoritj' that this was not necessai'y. 
I believe that it is a matter to leave entirely with the native as to whether 
he wants to make such application or not. 

Q. Then why do you not do it? — A. Just as I have just answered. I think 
it is an injuustice to the native. 

C. E. Hibbs. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] Will H. Winston, 

' Notary PuMic for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 12, 1921. 

Mrs. C. E. HIBBS : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Winifred Hibbs. 

Q. Are you the Mrs. Hibbs that is mentioned in this notice? — A. I am. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. Two years the. 21st day of August. 

Q. Have you any official position? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If so, what is it? — A. Assistant United States Government teacher. 

Q. Do you know the Indians and half-breeds whose names are in this 
notice? — A. I am personally acquainted with every one of them. 

Q. Do you know whether they appeared here last November at the polls to 
vote? — A. I know that they did. 

Q. Did they vote?— A. They did not vote. 

Q. Why not? — A. Because the judge refused to let them. 

Q. What reason was given for refusing to let them vote? — A. Because they 
were Indians. 

Q. How long have you known these people personally? — A. About two years. 

Q. Have you been in their homes? — A. I have. 

Q. Do you find that they are living a civilized life? — A. Yes. 

Q. If so, explain their condition? — A. They are self -governed people, they 
take. active part in religious work, they built homes, furnished them as white 
people do, dress as white people, take no part whatever in tribal customs, 
have learned to read and speak the English language. 

Q. Do you know what kind of different businesses the Indians and half- 
breeds are engaged in? — A. Yes. They are merchants, carpenters, seine makers, 
and fishermen. 

Q. Would you say that they had severed their tribal relations? — A. I most 
certainly would. 

Q. What kind of a government have they are Klawock? — A. We speak of it 
as a village government— the council to make laws and executive officers to 
enforce them. 

Q. Who runs that government?— A. The natives themselves. 

Q. Have they a cooperative store there. — A. They have. 

Q. Who operates it and how is it run? — A. The iaatives own the entire stock 
of the store. The shareholders elect their directors. A native is the clerk and 
manager of the store. The United States Government teacher does the book- 
keeping and orders the goods. His books are audited once a year by a repre- 
sentative from the United States Bureau of Education. 

Q. Have they any societies there? If so, what are they? — A. Yes ; they have 
a fraternal order called the Brotherhood for the men of the village and a corre- 
sponding order for the ladies called the Sisterhood ; also an educational and 
literary society. 



332 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Is there any of these natives that were refused the privilege of voting 
members of these societies? — A. Manj', if not all of them, were connected with 
these societies. 

Q. Do you know whether or not any of these people have voted before? — A. I 
do not. 

Q. Where is the voting precinct of Klawock? — ^A. Craig, Alaska. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickeksham : 

Q. Mrs. Hibbs, you are the wife of Mr. C. E. Hibbs, the witness who preceded 
you? — A. I am. 

Q. You speak of three societies at Klawock; those same societies are estab- 
lished at Hydaburg, are they not?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Nowhere else except at Klawock? — A. They are separate and distinct 
from any other societies. 

Q. Are there similar societies at any other places? — A. I have heard of a 
literary society at Hydaburg. 

Q. But no Brotherhood Society? — A. I know nothing about it. 

Q. Is it not true, Mrs. Hibbs, that these societies, the Brotherhood, the Sister- 
hood, and literary, are established at many other Indian reservations? — A. My 
work has been entirely at Klawock and with the Klawock Indians, other than 
what I have heard said. 

Q. When were these societies established at Klawock? — A. The literary soci- 
ety was established last winter. The Brotherhood was established a year ago 
this spring, to the best of my knowledge. The Sisterhood, I am not sure when. 

Q. Well, about? — A. It was established about the same time the Brotherhood 
was. 

Q. What school official, church official, assisted in establishing these soci- 
eties? — A. Mr. Bromley and Mr. Hibbs were instrumental in establishing the liter- 
ary society, and the natives themselves organized the Brotherhood and Sis- 
terhood. 

Q. Where did they get the plan or idea? — A. I think that the natives there 
at one time belonged to the Alaska Natives' Brotherhood. And they got their 
idea further from the way the Moose here at Craig took care of the sick 
and dead. 

Q. Most of these people are fishermen, are they not, Mrs. Hibbs?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They always were fishermen? — A. I have only known them two years. 

Q. Do you think they have learned to fish since the white man came here? — 
A. No. 

Q. You spoke of them living in houses; do they have any of the Klawock 
houses there yet? Any of the old houses yet? — A. I have only been there two 
years and they don't look very old to me. 

Q. Don't you know the difference between the old Indian type of house and 
the more recent or American type?— A. Yes; the houses out at the fish camp 
differ greatly from those that we have at the village. The houses that these 
people live in have modern chimneys, modern doors and windows. 

Mrs. Winifred Hibbs. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Will H. Winston, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 12, 1921. 

Rev. E. E. BROMLEY: 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Bromley? — A. At Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived there?— A. One year and one month. 

Q. What is your business? — A. I am a minister. 

Q. What church?— A. I am under commission of the missionary board of 
the Presbyterian Church of America. 

Q. Are you acquainted with these Indians and half-breeds named in the notice 
in the contest between James Wickersham and Charles A. Sulzer? — A. I am. 

Q. How long have you known them? — A. Since coming to Klawock a little 
over a year ago. 

Q. Please state the nature of your acquaintance with them?— A. I married 
their young people and buried their dead. I have visited the sick. As a 
minister I have done personal work in every home. I see them as they live 
in their own homes when they are apart from other people. I meet them in 
public gatherings and in this way I am acquainted with every phase of their life. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 333 

Q. Do you know whether they are in business in Klawock? If so state what 
you know about it and their manner of living. — A. Their business is such that 
it would lead anyone to believe that they are living a civilized life. The oldest 
store in Klawock is conducted by R. J. Peratovich, who is sole owner and pro- 
prietor, and the Klawock Commercial Co. employs George Demmert as the 
manager and clerk in their store. There are three boat shops in Klawock 
owned and operated by these men. A number of them have been employed as 
expert carpenters doing expert carpenter work. I see them engaged as gas- 
boat engineers on the large gas boats that are carrying fish to the canneries. 
One of them, Jack Peratovich. is recognized as an expert interpreter. He is 
at the present time my interpreter in all my work. Of course, during the 
fishing season many of them are out seining and doing the regular fish busi- 
ness. After the fishing season closes they will find work in other ways or lines. 
They go trapping, halibut fishing, and things of that kind. I have an excellent 
opportunity of seeing their manner of living. I go in and out among them and 
I will say that they are trying to live in accordance with the laws of the 
United States and the Territory of Alaska. They recognize the value of school 
training for their children. Many of them have sent their children to the 
States to Government schools, Chemawa and Cushman. 

Q. Hfve these people severed their tribal relations and are they living as 
oivilizea people? In other words, have they accepted civilized way of living? 
A. When I say that they are trying to make their lives conform to the laws 
of the Territory of Alaska and the United States of America I believe it shows 
that they are trying to live a civilized life. Many of the old customs and 
tribal relations were not in accordance with the laws of the Territory. As 
far as I can see these have been dropped entirely. 

Q. Can they read and write the English language and speak it? And espe- 
cially these names that have been mentioned as witnesses in this case? A. I 
have talked many times with all of the men that are mentioned in this case 
and know that they have an intelligent knowledge of the English language. 
I know also that they are able to read and write. 

Q. Did you come over here with those men on election day and do you know 
whether or not they were allowed to vote? A. I was not with the men that 
came to Craig to vote. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Mr. Bromley, how many Indians reside at Klawock? A. In round num- 
bers about 300. 

Q. And of these, you think the witnesses mentioned in the notice here are 
civilized and capable of casting the ballot; do you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many more do you think are equally civilized? A. I would say 
that the whole village is living what we would call a civilized life, but I do 
think that nearly all who could qualify as voters came over to vote ; I know 
of several not mentioned in this list who could qualify as well as those who 
are mentioned. 

Q. Do you think they are now entitled to purchase and drink whisky? 
A. I do not think that my answer to that question would add anything to 
this case. 

Q. Well, if they are citizens, they are as well entitled to drink liquor as 
nny other citizen, are they not? A. In my talks with the people of Klawock 
I try to tell them to live a good moral and temperate life the same as I would 
if I were talking to white people. 

Q. Yes, but you Avere called here as an expert witness to qualify these 
people for citizenship in opposition to the law passed by the Legislature of 
Alaska, and I now ask you again if you think they are equally entitled to 
purchase and drink whisky? A. I do not think that the right to purchase 
and drink whisky gives a man the right to vote or prove his citizenship. 

Q. No, but a citizen is permitted under the law to purchase and drink 
>vhisky ; do you know that? A. Y^'es sir.I know that. 

Q. Well, do you think these people have that right? — A. I can answer as 
I did before, I do not think that my answer would add anything to the testi- 
mony in this case. 

Q. Why do you not answer that question fairly as a Christian gentleman, 
is it because you realize that you are assisting to start these Indians on the 
wrong road? — A. When I say that I believe that these people are living civi- 
lized lives and are entitled to vote I mean that they have the moral stamina 



334 WICKEESHAM VS. STJLZER. 

and backbone to take their place among the white people and not be ruined 
by the privileges that they will inherit with citizenship. 

Q. How many of these 300 people speak, read, and write the English lan- 
guage? — A. All of the younger generation, but a few of the older people have 
acquired enough of the English language so that they can read considerable. 

Q. Then why do you have to have an interpreter when you work among 
them? — A. Because a large number of the older people attend my services 
and for their sake we must have the interpreter. I will say also that while 
some of them understand the English language so that they can carry on a 
business conversation and ordinai-y talk in regard to their work, when it comes 
to the explaining of the Truth that I, as a minister, am ti'ying to bring to them 
their knowledge of English is not sufficient, this of course just applies to a 
few, as an explanation why I use an interpreter. 

Q. Have you considered the Territorial act for fixing the citizenship of these 
people? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to that because it is not competent and not proper 
cross-examination. 

A. Why, yes I have acquainted myself with that act. 

Q. Do you also advise the Indians that it is not necessary to comply with it? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to that for the same reason. 

A. I have not taken up that matter with the people at all. 

Q. "Well, why do you not, instead of intruding into these political scraps? 

Mr. Sellers. Same objection as before. 

A. I have had no occasion so far. 

Q. How did you have occasion to be here? — A. Because I was called as a 
witness. 

Q. Did you assist in making up the list of witnesses in this case? — ^A. I 
did not. 

Q. Were you consulted about the matter prior to coming on the witness 
stand ? — A. No, sir ; I was not. 

Q. Nobody spoke to you about the matter at all? — A. Only that I was notified 
that my name was on as a witness. 

Q. How did they know what you would testify to? — A. They had no way 
of knowing. 

Q. Have you not talked about the status of these people, their rights as 
citizens, to Mr. Hebbs before coming here to-day? 

Mr. Seelers. I object to that as being immaterial. 

A. Why, in a general conversation we have. I believe, talked over these 
matters. 

Q. To what extent? — A. Not to any great extent. 

Q. Enough to give him the views generally that you have presented here? 
A. My views on some things tliat I have said, no doubt. 

Q. Well, generally? — A. Perhaps. 

Q. Then why did you deny it? — A. I was not aware that I did deny it. 

Q. The Klawocks live on an Indian Reservation do they not? — A. They do not. 

Q. Are you as sure about that as you are about their capacity for citizen- 
ship? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to that as being improper. 

A. Why, I am no lawyer biit that is my understanding of tlie condition of 
affairs. 

Q. You know the island where they live is withdrawn by an Executive order 
for Indian use do you not?^ — A. I Ivuow that the island has been set aside as a 
reserve, but in no sense as a reservation. The people are free to come and go 
as they desire. No one interferes. They are not Government wards. They 
take care of themselves. 

Q. Are white people allowed to settle on the island? — A. Why, I think that 
the natives themselves shall decide or say who shall settle there. 

Q. Now you think white people may settle there notwithstanding the with- 
drawal for public use by President Wilson? 

Mr. Sellers. I object to that as incompetent, no matter what his opinion is. 

A. My understanding is as I said that the natives are to decide that. 

Q. Where do you get that law? — A. I can not answer that question. 

Rev. E. E. Bromley. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Will H. Winston, 

Notary Pahlic for Alaska. 

My commission expires June 12, 1921. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 335 

R. J. PERATOVIOH: 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Klawock, Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. I am born in there. 

Q. What is your business? — A. My business Is store and moving pictures. 

Q. What is your age? — A. I will be 30 years July 27. 

Q. Who is your father-— A. John Peratovich. 

Q. Is he a native? — A. No. 

Q. What is he? — A. He is come from Austria. 

Q. How long- have you been in that business, moving picture and store busi- 
ness that you referred to? — A. I nm in the stoi-e business since 1909 and the 
moving pictures 1913. 

Q. How much have you got invested in that business? — A. My inventory last 
winter and the first of the year included the store and moving pictures and the 
w^hole property I got, store-building and the moving picture hall, and the ware- 
house, $14,700. 

Q. Do you operate this moving picture machine yourself? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you belong to any societies at Klawock? — A. Yes, I belong to Brother- 
hood, I am chairman in the Brotherhood Society. 

Q. Have you any interest in the cooperative store there? — A. No. I am the 
first one started it but they got me out so I went into my own business. 

Q. Do you belong to any church?— A. Yes. 
• Q. What church? — A. The Presbyterian Church since the first minister comes 
there. 

Q. When did you first join the church? — A. I believe it is in 1913. it is in 
there, 1912 or 1913. 

Q. Can you read and write the English language? — ^A. Yes; I can read a 
little and write a little ; jiist enough so that I can do my business myself. I 
read enough and write enough to take care of my books in my own business. 

Q. How long has your father been in this country? — A. Why, I could not 
tell you exactly, but I believe he has been in here 38 or 40 years. 

Q. What was his business? — A. Why. he did not have any business at all — 
just a common laborer in the cannery; — but he was doing fine work and he got 
in the fish business as fish boss. He did that all the rest of his life. That's 
for a company, of course. 

Q. Is he dead or alive now? — A. He is dead over a year ago. 

Q. Are you a married man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who married you? — A. A minister named David Waggoner. 

Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, I had four children; three alive and 
one dead. 

Q. Did you go to school? — A. Yes; I was in the public school in Klawock. 

Q. How far did yoii get in school? — A. I did not go over fourth grade. 

Q. What business were you in before you went into the mercantile busi- 
ness? — A. I picked up the engineer courses after I left school. That's the 
trade I got before I do the store business. 

Q. How long did you follow it? — A. Follow which? 

Q. How long did you follow engineering? — A. About six and one-half years, 
and I couldn't get no papers when the law passed that all engineers must have 
the papers, and I did not have enough education to pass the examination, so I 
quit the trade. 

Q. Have you taken up the question of religion and joined a church? — -A. I 
told him before I joined the church soon as the first minister comes. 

Q. Have you ever voted in your life? If so. when and where? — A. Yes; I 
voted twice that I know of — once in Craig, that's two years ago, and once in 
Ketchikan, last February. 

Q. What did you vote for at that election at Craig — for Delegate? — A. Yes; 
I believe it's for Delegate of Alaska. I vote for Mr. Wickersham at the time. 

Q. Are you one of those that came here last November to vote for Delegate? — 
A. Yes, I am one of them. 

Q. Did you vote? — A. No; I did not. 

Q. Why not? — A. Because my mother was a native. 

Q. Who would not let you vote? — A. Well. I tell you, I name the gentlemens 
that says -^-e ain't got no rights to vote. Mr. Hal Gould, he is the first one, 
and Mr. J. P. Smith, he is the second man that got up; Mr. Fred Butler was 
there reading the law saying that we had no rights to vote. And Mr. Coker 
says tro it out — all of these natives out of this election board. 

Q. Was Mr. Gould one of the judges of the election board? — A. Yes, sir; he 
said he was when I asked him who he is. 



336 WICKEKSHAM VS. STJLZER. 

Q. If you wovild have had the right to vote on that day who w^ould you have 
voted for? — A. I believe in my own judgment I would vote for Mr. Sulzer. 
Q. That was your intention? — A. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. In what country was your father born? — A. I could not tell you exact 
which part of the old country he was born. It was in Austria. He have all 
his record on his books of his family and what he done all his life, with his 
citizen papers in it, which was all destroyed by fire just a few months after 
his death; but I think that you can find some of his records in this Moose 
lodge in Craig — in which part of the country he was born and his death. 

Q. Have you got a copy of his naturalization papers? — A. No; I have not. 

Q. Do you know where he took out his final papers, if at all? — A. Why, I 
believe he said once he had his first papers in San Francisco. 

Q. Is that all he ever said about it? — A. That's all I know of. 

Q. You do not know that he ever took out his second papers? — A. I do not. 

Redirect by Mr. Sellers : 
Q. Did your father ever join or enlist in the United States Navy? — A. Well, 
I believe he is ; he said so ; that he was in the Navy when he first came out the 
old countiT- That's the way he got up to this country. 

Recross by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. What was your father's name? — A. John Peratovich. 

Q. Did he say that he ran away from the Navy to this country? — A. Well, 
I won't say ; I don't know I'm sure, cause he won't say how he ran away 
and how he got up to this country. 

Q. Did he say what was the name of the vessel he came to Alaska on? — A. 
He came over Alaska from San Francisco in a sailing schooner. 

Q. Did he say the name of any naval vessel he served on? — A. No; I don't 
remember any of them ; he might, but I don't hear him name any vessel he was 
on when he came to or in ^Alaska. 

Q. Well, you are not sure that he ever was an enlisted man in the Navy, are 
you? — A. No; I am not sure of it; but he used to tell us what a hard time he 
had on ships. 

R. J. Peratovich. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] Will H. Winston, 

Notary Ptiblic for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 12, 1921. 

C. D. CALHOUN: 

Q. Please state your name. — A. C. D. Calhoun. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Craig. Alaska. 

Q. How long have you lived here? — A. Two years; that is, permanently. 

Q. Where did you live before that time? — A. Seattle. 

Q. Have you any official position? — A. I am deputy United States marshal. 

Q. How long haVe you been a deputy marshal? — A. Since May 10, 1915. 

Q. Were you here at the election November 7 last? — A. I was. 

Q. Do you know the names of these Indians and half-breeds that have been 
subpoenaed to be present at this hearing? — A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known them? — A. I came to Alaska in 1909, and have 
known most of them since that time. 

Q. Where have they been living since you knew them? — A. At Klawock. 

Q. Where is the voting place of Klawock? — A. You mean for Klawock? 

Q. Yes. — A. At Craig. 

Q. Were you here when these men presented themselves to vote, last election, 
November 7, 1916? — A. I was. 

Q. Did these parties vote? — A. They did not. 

Q. Why not? — A. They were informed by the judges of election that they had 
no right to vote, on account of their being Indians. 

Q. Since the time that you have known these half-breeds and Indians, who 
presented themselves on that day for the right to vote, have they lived the 
same as white people, and have they severed their tribal relations? — A. They 
have severed their tribal relations and are trying to live same as white people. 

Q. Please state what you know of their ways of living and their business. — 
A. The majority of them live by fishing, some are in the mercantile business, 
boat building. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 337 

Q. These parties that have been mentioned, can they read, write, and speak 
the English language? — A. I know from personal obseiwation that they can. 
Q. Were you present when they voted two years ago last election? — A. I was. 
Q. Were their votes protested at that time? — A. They were not. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickeesham : 

Q. Mr. Calhoun, If you saw a saloon keeper sell one of these Indians or half- 
breeds intoxicating liquors, would you have him arrested for it? 

Mr. Sellees : I object to that as incompetent and immaterial. 

A. I would. 

Q. You know they are Indians, don't you? — A. I do. 

Q. Tou know they reside on an Indian reservation, on an island set apart for 
their use by an order of the President, don't you? — ^A. I do. 

Q. You know that the Government teacher, employed by the United States' 
Bureau of Education, is there in charge of their schools and business, don't 
you? — A. I do. 

Q. You know the white children do not go to the school on that reservation, 
don't you. — A. I do. 

Q. You know that white men are not allowed to settle on that reservation, 
don't you? — A. Unless they were located there prior to the time it was set 
aside. 

Q. There are about 300 Indians residing on that reservation, are there 
not?— A. Yes. 

Q. How many white men and women and children reside there, and what 
do they do? — A. Nine, to my knowledge; missionaries, school-teachers, fish- 
ermen. 

Q. How many missionaries, including children? — A. Four. 

Q. Mr. Bromley and his Avife and two children? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many in Mr. Hibb's family? — A. Two. And during school time 
they have another teacher living there. 

Q. What other Avhite men or persons live there? — -A. George Nelson, Jack 
Brady, Mose Morrison ; there may be others, but that is all that I can think 
of now. 

Q. Are they married to Indian women? — A. Brady is not. 

Q. How does it come that he is allowed to remain there? — A. He has a 
settler's right, as I imderstand it. 

Q. Secured prior to the withdrawal of the land for Indian purposes? — -A. I 
think so. 

Q. Do you know Judge Jennings, district judge of this division, and his 
politics? 

Mr. Selleks. I object to that as being incompetent and immaterial. 

A. I do. 

Q. He's a Democrat? 

(Same objection by Mr. Sellers.) 

A. He is. 

Q. Is Charles Fox, commissioner of this precinct, also a Democrat? 

(Same objection by Mr. Sellers.) 

A. He is. But had absolutely nothing to do with the election. 

Q. Who appointed the election officers in this precinct for the election held 
November 7, 1916? 

(Same objection by Mr. Sellers.) 

A. Judge Stackpole, of Ketchikan. 

Q. Is Craig in Ketchikan precinct? — ^A. Not voting precinct. 

Q. Commissioner's precinct? — A. A commissioner's precinct is anywhere in 
the division, I suppose. 

Q. Well, what I want to know is, if the matter of the appointment of the 
election officers in Craig, at that election, was not under the control of the 
Democrats? 

(Same objection by Mr. Sellers.) 

A. It was not. 

Q. Well. Judge Jemiings appointed the commissioner, didn't he? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that commissioner appoints the election officer, does he not? — ^A. He 
does. 

Q. And Judge Jennings could remove the commissioner at any moment 
without stating any cause for it, could he not? 

(Same objection by Mr. Sellers.) 

A. He could. 

13289—17 22 



338 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. And that commissioner supported Mr. Sulzer, did lie not? — A. He did not. 
if I have been riglitly informed. 

Q. Is that all you know about it?— A. I did not see him vote. 

Q. There is, hovpever, no suspician in your mind that I had any influence in 
the control of the appointment of those election officers, is there? 

Mr. Sellees. I object to the question, because it is incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial, and, further, it calls for the conclusion of the witness. 

A. No, sir. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Sellers : 
Q. I would like to ask, Mr. Calhoun, if Judge Stackpole was not a Republican, 
and that he appointed this election board without the influence of Judge Jen- 
nings?- — A. There was no influence brought to bear to my knowledge, and Judge 
Stackpole is a Republican. 

C. D. Calhoun. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July, 1917. 
[SEAL.] Will H. Winston, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 12. 1921. 

GEORGE DEMMERT : 

Q. Please state your name. — A. George Demmert. 

Q. Are you a native, Mr. Demmert? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How old are you? — A. Well, I am about 33 now, pretty near 34. 

Q. Where were you born? — A. Shakan, Alaska. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. I am living at Klawock now. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. I have lived there about two years 
and nine months at Klawock. 

Q. Have you ever attended school?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What school? — A. Sitka mission. 

Q. How long did you attend school in Sitka? — A. About seven years. 

Q. Can you head and write the English language? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your business, Mr. Demmert? — A. Well. I am storekeeper and 
manager now. 

Q. What is the nature of that business? — A. General merchandise. 

Q. How long have you been in that business? — A. Two years and nine 
months — since I moved to Klawock. 

Q. Who owns the business? — A. Why, the natives; the company all belongs 
to the natives. 

Q. What business were you in before that? — A. Why, I have been working 
on gas boats in the summertime ; in the wintertime I have been building 
.boats with my father. 

Q. Do you belong to any church? — A. Yes, sir; Presbyterian. 

"Q. When did you first join that church? — A. Well. I first joined the church 
at Sitka, when I went to school. I joined the church about 1897. 

Q. Are you married? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do they attend school? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have they attended school? — A. Why, the oldest one has at- 
tended school about three years and the youngest about two. 

Q. Have you any property? — A. Yes, sir, 

Q. What is it and how much are you worth? — A. I am a third owner in 
the Winifred D., about a $3,000 share, and I am In the Klawock Commercial Co. 
about $550, and I got a home valued about $1,200. 

Q. Do you hold any office in that company? If so, what is it?— A. Manager 
and storekeeper. 

Q. What are the duties of a manager?— A. He sees that everything is going 
all right. 

Q. What kind of a home have you got?— A. I got a bungalow with five rooms 
in it. 

Q. How is it furnished? By modern furniture? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Do you belong to any society at Klawock? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is it?— A. The Brotherhood. 

Q. Do you belong to any literary society? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What kind of a city government have you at Klawock? — A. We got a 
council, a mayor, 12 men, a judge, and a marshal ; that's all. 



WIOKEESHAM VS. STJLZER. 339 

Q. Do you hold any of those offices? If so, what is it? — A. Just a member of 
the council. 

Q. Do you know who the President of the United States is? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who is it?— A. Wilson. 

Q. Is this his first or second term? — A. Second term. 

Q. Do you know who the governor of the Territory is? — A. Strong. 

Q. Have you ever voted? — A. I wasn't in Klawock the first year to vote. 

Q. Did you come over here November 7 last and try to vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you vote? — A. No; they would not let me vote. 

Q. Who wouldn't let you vote? — A. The judges. 

Q. Why? — A. They claimed I wasn't civilized. 

Q. Have you given up all your tribal relations? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And living like a white man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If you were allowed to vote at the last election, November 7, 1916, who 
would you have voted for? — A. Mr. Sulzer. 

Q. What position was Mr. Sulzer running for? — A. Delegate of Alaska. 

Q. Who opposed him? — A. Mr. Wickersham. 

Q. Where did you come to vote at the last election? — A. At Craig. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wickersham : 

Q. Mr. Demmert, you are a native-born Indian, are you not? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. You live on the Klawock Indian Reservation, do you not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many Indians live on that reservation? — A. I don't know just 
exactly. 

Q. It was stated yesterday that there are about 300 natives living there ; is 
that about right? — A. Yes; that is pretty near. 

Q. How many white people live there? — A. About six or seven. 

Q. That number includes the United States Government school teacher and bis 
wife, the missionary, his wife, and two children, does it? — A. Well I did not 
figure the two children, but there was another teacher, Miss Forest. 

Q. Are white men allowed to settle on the island now? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Who has chai'ge there for the Government?— A. Mr. Hibbs. 

Q. Mr. Hibbs left here yesterday with a gasoline launch to find more wit- 
nesses in this case. Did he bring you here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say you and your children went to school. Is it not true you went to 
the mission school at Sitka and your children now go to the Government school 
on the Klawock Reservation? — A. Yes, sir. 

Geoege Demmekt. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] Will H. Winston, 

Notary Public for Alaska. 
My commission expires June 12, 1921. 

Contestant's Exhibit A. 

Territory of Alaska, office of secretary, Juneau, Alaska. Chapter 24. An act 
(S. B. 21) to define and establish the political status of certain native Indians 
within the Territory of Alaska. 
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska: 

Section 1. Every native Indian born within the limits of the Territory of 
Alaska and who has severed all tribal relationship and adopted the habits of a 
civilized life in accordance with section six (6), chapter one hundred and nine- 
teen (119), 24 Stat, at Largo, three hundred ninety (390), may, after the 
passage and approval of this act. have the fact of his citizenship definitely 
estiiblished by complying with the terms hereafter set forth. 

Sec. 2. Every native Indian of the Territory of Alaska who shall desire a 
certificate of his citizenship shall first make application to a United States 
Government. Territorial, or municipal school, and shall be subjected to an ex- 
amination by a majority of the teachers of such school as to his or her qualifi- 
cations and claims for citizenship. Such examination shall broadly cover the 
general qualifications of the applicant as to an intelligent exercise of the obliga- 
tions of suffrage, a total alnindonment of any tribal customs or relationship, and 
the facts regarding the applicant's adoption of the habits of a civilized life. 

Sec. 8. Any native Indian of the Territory of Alaska who shall oljtain a cer- 
tificate in accordance v\-ith section two (2) of this act, which eerlificate shall 
set forth that a proper examination has been duly held and the applicant found 
to have abandoned all tribal customs and relationship, to have adopted the 



340 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

ways and habits of a civilized life and to be properly CLualified to iutelligently 
exercise the obligations of an elector in the Territory of Alaska, shall thereupon 
obtain an indorsement upon said certificate by at least five white citizens of 
the United States who have been permanent residents of Alaska for at least 
one year, who were not members of the examining board as provided in section 
2, to' the effect that such citizens have been personally acquainted with the life 
and habits of such Indian for a period of at least one year and that in their 
best judgment such Indian has abandoned all tribal customs and relationship 
has adopted the ways and habits of a civilized life, aud is duly qualified to ex- 
ercise the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship. 

Sec. 4. Upon securing such certificate as provided by sections two (2) and 
three (3) of this act properly signed in ink, the applicant shall forward the 
same, together with an oath duly acknowledged to the effect that such applicant 
forever renounces all tribal customs and relationships, to the United States 
district court for the division in which the applicant resides, praying for the 
granting of a certificate of citizenship. 

Sec. 5. Upon receiving such application the judge of the district court shall 
set a day of hearing on such application which shall not be less than sixty (60) 
days from the date of receipt of such application, whereupon the clerk of the 
district court shall post a notice in his office containing the name of the appli- 
cant and the facts set forth in his application and the date set for the hearing 
upon the application, and shall immediately forward a copy of such notice to 
the applicant, whereupon the applicant shall post such notice or a copy thereof 
in a conspicuous place at the post office nearest to his or her residence. 

Sec. 6. Upon approval of such application by the judge of the United States 
district court for the division in which the applicant resides, the said judge 
shall issue a certificate, certifying that due proof has been made to him that the 
said applicant is " an Indian born within the territorial limits of the United 
States, and that he has voluntarily taken up within said limits his residence 
separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits 
of civilized life." Said certificate, when presented in court or otherwise, shall 
be taken and considered as prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements 
therein contained. 

Approved April 27, 1915. 

peoof of service of notice of taking deposition of indians, hai,f breeds, 
and white peesons now eesiding at klaavock and ckaig, alaska. 

State of Washington, 

County of King, ss: 
. A. WINDT, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says that he is a 
citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, living at 
Seattle, in King County, in said State ; above the age of 21 years ; that he re- 
ceived, the attached notice of the taking of depositions in the above-entitled 
cause on July 9, 1917, and that on July 9, 1917, he duly served the same upon 
James Wickersham, contestant above named, by delivering to and leaving with 
said James Wickersham, at Seattle, Wash., a true and correct copy of the at- 
tached notice. 

A. WiNDT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] r. jNi. Jones, 

Notary Puhlic in and for the State of Wnshington, residing at Seattle. 

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF INDIANS, HALF BREEDS, AND WHITE PEESONS 
NOW EESIDING AT KLAWOCK AND CEAIG, ALASKA. 

To James Wickersham, contestant in the obove proceeding: 

You ai-e hereby notified that the contestee, Charles A. Sulzer, is desirous of 
obtaining the testimony of the following named persons in the foregoing con- 
test, and will apply to Will H. Winston, Esq., a notary public in and for the 
Territory of Alaska, residing at Ketchikan, Alaska, for a subpcena to issue 
to each of said following-named witnesses, aud will take the testimony of each 
of said witnesses at the town of Craig, Alaska, in the public school building 
there, beginning at the hour of 10 a. m. in the forenoon on Wednesday, July 
25, 1917, and from day to day thereafter until the taking of said testimony is 
completed. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 341 

Said testimony will be taken before Will H. Winston, notary public, and the 
following-named persons who are now living at Craig and Klawock — Craig, 
Alaska, being the voting precinct of said voters-— and they will be subpoenaed 
and their evidence taken on said examination before said officer at the said 
time and place hereinbefore mentioned. 

The names of the Indians and half-breeds are C. E. Demmert, Emma Dem- 
mert, Spencer Williams, George Demmert, Jack Peratovich, R. J. Peratovich, 
James Peratovich, William Jones, John Darrow. J. S. Johnson, George Roberts, 
Henry Roberts, George Fields, Peter Wilson, J. K. Williams, John Skan, Fred 
Williams. Roy Williams, Richard Collins, A. W. Thomas, Sam Gunyah, Arthur 
James, William Gunyah, Albert Thomas, James Rowen, Peter Scott, Jimmie 
Jackson, Donald Kathlean, Maxfield Daklin, and Lee Anneskit. The above- 
named persons were residents and voters in Craig precinct on November 7, 
1916, the date of the last general election in Alaska for the election of Dele- 
gate to Congress from said Territory, and each of said persons presented himself 
before the election board of that precinct, composed of Charles Fox, Rev. Koker, 
and Harold Gould, for the right to exercise their right of franchise, and offered 
to swear their vote in, but the same was refused ; that each of the above wit- 
nesses were leading civilized lives, were educated, and in every way qualified to 
vote, and that they were desirous of voting for Charles A. Sulzer. 

You are further notified that this contestee at the time and place above men- 
tioned will also take the evidence of C. C. Hibbs, Mrs. C. C. Hibbs, Rev. Brom- 
ley, of Klawock, and C. D. Calhoun, of Craig, as to the facts of things above 
stated, and that the afore-mentioned Indians and half-breeds had severed their 
tribal relations. 

Please take notice and have your representative, agent, or attorney present 
at said time and place. 

Charles A. Sulzee, 
By Hellenthal & Winn, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 

Ketchikan, Alaska. 

July 2, 1917. 

notice of time and place foe taking depositions of witnesses. 

To the Hon. James Wickeesham, contestant : 

You are hereby notified that the testimony of G. A. Adams, E. E. Adams, 
Russell Bowen, W. R. Hayes, Robert James, William Priest, and of other wit- 
nesses on behalf of contestee, whose names are to the contestee unknown, all of 
whom reside at or near Nome, Alaska, will be taken before D. B. Chace, notary 
public for Alaska, at the office of Hugh O'Neill at Nome, Alaska, at 2 o'clock 
p. m. on July 25, 1917, and continuing thereafter until such depositions are 
completed. 

Hereof you will take due notice. 

Claeles a. Sulzee, 

Contestee. 
By Thomas J. Donohoe, 

Attorney for Contestee. 

PEOOF OF SEEVICE OF NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE FOE TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

witnesses. 
State of Washington, 

County of King, ss: 
A. WINDT, being duly sworn, says : That he is a citizen of the United States, 
of lawful age, and a resident of the city of Seattle, in King County, Wash. ; that 
he knows personally the above-named contestant, James Wickersham ; that on 
June 27, A. D. 1917, affiant received the foregoing notice of time and place' for 
taking depositions in the contest above entitled, and on the same date affiant 
personally delivered a duplicate thereof, signed by Charles A. Sulzer, contestee, 
by Thomas J. Donohoe, attorney for contestee, to the said James Wickersham 
in person, at Auburn, within King County, Wash. ;' that said service was made 
by delivery as aforesaid to the said Wickersham in person by this affiant in 
person at about 4.50 o'clock p. m. of the said June 27, A. D. 1917. 

A. WiNDT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of June, A. D. 1917. 
{seal.] r. m. Jones, 

Notary Ptihlic for Washington, residing at Seattle. 



342 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

DEPOSITIONS. 

Be it remembered that, pursuant to the notice hereto annexed, and on the 
25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, at Nome, Alaska, before 
me, D. B. Chace, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, personally 
appeared Herbert Spencer, Russell Bowen, G. A. Adams, Robert James, W. R. 
Hayes, E. E. Adams, Louis Ericson, Fred Larsen, and Frank Martin, witnesses 
produced on behalf of the contestee in the above-entitled action now pending 
before the House of Representatives of the United States, who, being first by me 
duly sworn, were then and there examined and interrogated by Hugh O'Neill, of 
counsel for contestee, and by G. J. Lomen, of counsel for contestant, and testi- 
fied as follows : 

HERBERT SPENCER, being duly sworn by the notary, testified as follows : 

By Mr. O'Neill: 
Q. How long have you resided in Alaska, Mr. Spencer? — A. Since 1897. 
Mr. Lomen. I want to object to any testimony being given on the part of Mr. 
Spencer on the ground that he is not named in the notice of taking of deposi- 
tions. 

Mr. O'Neill. If you look the notice over, it says " and other witnesses." 
Mr. Lomen. Yes, I know ; but I don't consider that complies with the statute. 
Q. Are you familiar with the place called Unalakleet, in the second division. 
Territory of Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How frequently have you been there during the time which you have been 
in Alaska? — A. Since I have been in Alaska — let me see — I have been there so 
many times I could not just tell you how many times I have been in and out 
of there. I have been in and out of there so much and had a camp there. 

Q. You are thoroughly familiar with the population of that place, are you 
not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you this document and ask you if you are familiar with the names 
upon the back of that document. [Paper handed to witness.]— A. Well, there is 
a large part of them here that I am familiar with. I am familiar with the 
names of a large number here, but then there are others I am satisfied that I 
would know if I saw them, but I don't recognize them by these names, but then I 
would know them by their face, you know. 

Q. You recognize a great many of Eskimos on that list ?— A. Yes, sir. 
Q. From your acquaintance with the Eskimos now living at Unalakleet, da 
you know as to whether or not they possess sufficient knowledge to intelligently 
exercise the obligation of suffrage? 

Mr. Lomen. That is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial ; no 
proper foundation laid. 

A. I don't know of any that do, according to my light. 

Q. These Eskimos that are now living there have never severed their tribal 

relations 

Mr. Lomen. That is objected to for the same reasons and because the witness 
has not shown himself competent to testify as an expert. 

Q. I asked you if they have severed their tribal relations, or, in other words, 

are they still living ^, ^ xt, 

Mr. Lomen. Let me add one more objection ; also for the reason that the ques- 
tion assumes facts not in evidence and facts that do not exist. 

Q. In other words, are these natives still pursuing the same habits that they 
had pursued when the white people first came to this country? 
Mr. Lomen. Same objections. 

A. They are pursuing the same habits that they have ever since I came to this 
country, that I have ever known them to pursue— fishing, hunting, and trading. 
Q Do you know of any Eskimos now living at Unalakleet that has sufficient 
intelligence to know the difference between the Democratic and Republican or 
Socialistic Parties? 
Mr. Lomen. Same objections. 
A. I don't know of one. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q Do you know the difference between the Republicans, Democrats, and 
Socialists as to their various programs yourself; could you define them, what 
the differences are?— A. I know the two old parties, the two old parties I 
know ; I can not exactly explain it the way I would want to. 

Q. Are you a citizen of the United States?— A. I am. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 343 

Q. Where were you born? — A. Born in New York State. 

Q. What is your business? — A. A man-of-war's man. 

Q. And how long since you were a man-of-war's man? — A. I was paid off 
the 6th of August. 1892. 

Q. And what have you been doing since? — A. After I left the States I came 
to this country, and have been prospecting and mining and hunting, fishing, 
trapping, and steamboating. 

Q. Have you resided at Unalakle'et during any of this time? — A. Have I 
resided there? 

Q. Yes. — A. I have camped there; that is. I have stopped there a few days 
at a time coming over the portage and leaving, and when on prospecting trips 
have camped there. 

Q. How many times have you been there during the last 10 years? — A. Let 
me see — the last 10 years — four times that I can recollect. 

Q. What year was the first time? — A. I was there and ran a road house up in 
the portage there. 

Q. How far is the portage from Unalakleet, from the Unalakleet voting 
precinct? — A. When I went there I went up to this road house and came back in 
the spring. I was trying to recollect what date it was. I don't remember ; I 
kept no diai'y. 

Q. The year is sufficient. — A. I think that was the first time in the last 10 
years, when I went up to take charge of the little road house ; it was called — 
they used to call it — some called it the Timber Road House and different names. 
It was alongside the trail, this side of the five-mile village, about 40 miles from 
Unalakleet, 5 miles the other side of Serosky's road house. 

Q. What year was it? — A. Well, I can not swear to the year, as I say I 
didn't keep a diary, you know, and when it is gone it is past. 

Q. Let's not get too much in the record, the lady will make too much money, 
you know. Now, when was the second time you were there? — A. You mean the 
next time after I left the road house? 

Q. Yes, sir ; the next time. — A. Well, I came down that same time from the 
road house that following spring — that same spring — I had been there that 
spring, but it was getting late and I went down and caught the schooner there. 

Q. What year was this ? — A. The dates I can not swear to ; I could not 
swear to the dates at all. 

Q. Can you tell the year? — A. The dates are the year, that is what I mean. 

Q. I don't want the dates; what year was it? — A. Well, if you don't know 
the date of the year, why you can not tell the year. 

Q. It is easier to tell the year than it is to tell the dates. 

Mr. O'Neill. He said he didn't remember the year, it was within the last 10 
years. 

Mr. LoMEN. He was there four times all together. I want to know when 
he was there, the first, second, third, and fourth times, as near as he can state, 

Mr. O'Neill. State how much time elapsed from the first time you were there 
until you were there again? 

A. Well, I was through there ; I have been through there so many times I 
kind of get mixed up. I was through there prospecting ; this is since ; yes, this 
is since I was prospecting there. 

Q. How many years since you were there the second time? — A. I was there 
three summers ago. 

Q. That is the last time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you there last fall at election time? — A. Last fall I wasn't there; 
no, sir. 

Q. You weren't there at election time? — A. No, sir. 

Q. And it is three years ago now since you were there? — A. Let me see. 
Yes, I went through there along, well, it was along, it was late in the spring 
when I went through there and went to Dime Creek stampede ; went over the 
portage. 

Q. Three years ago. Is that three years last fall or three years ago from 
this time?— A. Well, it was summer before this last summer. The summer 
before last when the stampede was on there. 

Q. Who did you speak and talk to at Unalakleet when you went through 
three years ago? — A. Stephen. 

Q. Stephon Ivanoff? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who else? Can you recollect a single other person than Stephon that 
you saw?— A. Well, Steinhauser and Tommie Powers. 

Q. Anybody else? — A. And David. I don't know what his last name is, he 
is a native. 



344 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. You don't know who voted there last fall? — A. Not outside of these names. 

Q. Well, you don't know anything about whether they voted or not? — A. No, 
sir ; only I just take it from this paper. 

Q. I know, but you are just assuming something? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You don't know anything about who voted, nor for whom they voted? — A. 
No, sir. 

Q. You don't know a thing about that. How many natives living at Unalak- 
leet last fall are you personally acquainted with? — ^A. Well, by their first names 
and faces 

Q. No, I mean personally acquainted with ; you know who they are? — A. Well, 
there are two I know personally there that live right there all the time, that 
were there then. 

Q. Well, who are they here on this list? — A. Harry Saxie and Rock. 

Q. Do you know anybody else personally? — A. Yes, sir; there is Susick. 

Q. Is that the first or last name? — A. That is the first name; I think that 
is the first name by the Eskimos. He goes by the name of Big Erick, too. 

Q. Is he an Eskimo? — A. He is an Eskimo ; yes, sir. 

Q. That is the extent of your acquaintance with any of the Eskimos down in 
that country? — A. Oh, no ; I know a good many of them by sight. 

Q. Well, going back now, you say you have been there twice ; now, when was 
the third time you were there? — A. Well, when I was prospecting there. 

Q. How many years ago? — A. That is within 10 years. 

Q. Now, how long did you stop within the Unalakleet voting precinct each 
of the times that you weer there — in number of days — how many days the first 
time?- — A. The first time I was there? 

Q. Yes. — A. The first time I was there in that place? 

Q. Yes ; within the last 10 years. — A. Oh, in the last 10 years ; let's see — the 
last time I was there M-as about 

Q. I am speaking of the first time you were there ; how many days did 
you stop? — A. Well, I didn't stop only two days. 

Q. And how many days did you stop the second time you were there? — 
A. When I came back I stopped a little over two weeks. 

Q. And the third time, how long did you stop? — A. Let's see, about five days, 
and then came back and stopped about between four and five days. 

Q. Is that the last time, then, that you were there? — A. No; that was the 
same time I was prospecting. 

Q. How long did you stop the last time you were there? — A. The last time 
I was there I was there about a week. 

Q. This was three years ago next fall, is it? — A. Well, it was summer before 
last when I came through. 

Q. Now, what tribe of Eskimos do the Eskimos of Unalakleet belong to? — 
A. Well, as far as tribal names are concerned, they are Malamutes to me ; that 
is all I ever heard them called. 

Q. Do you know of any other tribe in Alaska than the Malamutes ; and if so, 
what tribal names can you give them? — A. In the whole of Alaska? 

Q. Yes ; so far as you know anything about it. — A. Well, if you consider 
the Indians Eskimos 

Q. What I am talking about now is how many tribes you know of, desig- 
nating them by name? — A. Well, there is the Hoonahs, the Clinkoots, the AUuts, 
the Simsonans, the Hedas ; that is about all the different tribes that I can 
recollect. 

Q. Now, those you have mentioned, outside of the Malamutes, do not all of 
them live this side of the Kuskoquim? — A. No, sir. 

Q. All on the other side? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, are the Malamutes all of one tribe? — A. They are, so far as my 
knowledge is concerned. 

Q. How many places north of the Kuskoquim have you been in contact with 
the Malamutes? — A. Let's see, there are villages at the mouth of the Yukon 
that I have been in that I don't know the names of — at the mouth of the 
Yukon — St. Michael, Stibbons. Seclatauk, Galsovik, and Unalakleet. Do you 
want me to follow the coast up? 

Q. Yes; go on and follow the cotst? — A. Chatulig and Kuyuk village, Golovin 
Bay, White Mountain, Council, Bluff, and the old village that was down by the 
fort here, it used to be there. 

Q. Near Nome?— A. Yes, sir; it used to be near where the fort stands, but it 
is not there now, and Cape Nome itself. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 345 

Q. Do you know of the Malamutes farther north than that? — A. Well, yes; 
up to Port Clarence and Cape Prince of Wales. 

Q. Have you been as far north as Barrow? — A. No; I was not up to Point 
Barrow. Was up in the Arctic Ocean, but not to Point Barrow. 

Q. Do all of those villagers belong to the same tribe of Eskimos? — A. Well, 
they do as far as I know of. I have never heard of any different name to 
their tribe. 

Q. Now, what Eskimo chiefs have you know in your lifetime north of the 
Kuskoquim? — A. Well, Saxie. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. I believe he is in St. Michael. 

Q. And what is liis first name? — A. Saxie is the only name he goes by. The 
white men call him'Carver. 

Q. Is he what they call a medicine man? — A. Well, he is called a chief by 
the natives, as I understand, they always told me to that effect. 

Q. Do you know the difference between a chief and a medicine man? — A. A 
chief has power to conduct the actions of the tribe and the medicine man is the 
man who is supposed to heal the sick of the tribe. 

Q. And do you know of any laws among the natives of Alaska north of the 
Kuskoquim, and if so who lays down those laws and how are they laid' 
down? — A. They go to the chief. 

Q. And the chief is a sort of a judge; is that the idea? — A. He is. 

Q. He settles their disputes among them, is that the idea? — A. That is what 
he does. 

Q. Now, does he lead them into battle or anything of that kind? — A. He is 
supposed to. 

Q. Do you know of any battles that have ever been conducted by any of 
these Malamutes? — A. I do not. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

Q. Who supports the chief, or who does he support? 

Mr. O'Neill. Same objection ; same grounds. 

A. The chief hunts for himself and will give to others ; that is, as long as 
he is able to do it. 

Q. Do you know of anything that the chief really does as a chief? Does he 
occupy any executive power that you know of, and if so, what is it? — A. Noth- 
ing outside of settling any kind of a dispute or anything like that. I haven't 
seen them using any power over the natives. 

Q. You never heard of such a thing? — A. Not amongst themselves. 

Q. Is the authority exercised monarchical or democratic? — A. Is what? 

Q. Does he exercise power of a monarch among the natives or is he elected 
and has he a cabinet or anything of that kind ? — A. Not to my knowledge. He is 
simply placed there, as I understand it, through his ability to be square with 
all of them. 

Q. This one man commands a little more respect than another? — A. He does. 

Q. Isn't that all there is of it as far as you know? — A. That is as far as I 
can see. 

Q. That is as far as you know about it. A little smarter than some of the 
rest of them, he is supposed to be? — A. He is supposed to be. 

Q. There is no such thing as taxation or any law laid down, written or other- 
wise, so far as you know among the natives, are there? — A. I haven't seen any. 

Q. No. Never heard of it. Now, these Malamutes are making their own 
living, aren't they? — A. They fish and hunt as far as they are able unless 
they happen to be crippled or something like that, and then the rest will assist 
him. 

Q. And they trade, do they? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they own boats, do they not? — A. Oh, yes. 

Q. And they cut wood, do they not, and sell it? — A. Some. 

Q. Some of them do. Now, do they live exclusively in igloos or do they live 
in shacks or shanties? — A. Cabins and shacks. 

Q. And log houses? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And do they buy groceries? — A. Yes, sir; when they have the money. 

Q. And they buy ready-made clothing? — A. Some do. 

Q. And beads? — A. Some do. 

Q. And jewelry? — A. Some of them. 

Q. And cooking utensils? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And guns? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And furniture? — A. Some do. 



346 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. Now, which oue of the relatives who is on this list you referred to a little 
while ago doesn't live in cabins and has no furniture and doesn't buy shoes and 
ready-made clothing? 

Mr. O'Neill. Ob.iected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial and not 
in any way tending to show that the native has knowledge sufficient to exercise 
the obligation of suffrage or that he has adopted the habits of civilized life and 
severed his connection from his tribe. 

Q. Which of the names on the list can you determine do not live practically 
the same as the white men do down there at Unalakleet? Take the list and 
look at it. Give us the names of those who do not live practically in the same 
manner as the white people do down there at Unalakleet. — A. As the white 
people that are there? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes ; that is what he means. 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. There is a storekeeper and a road-house man 

Q. Are they natives? — A. No, sir. 

Q. I am not talking about anybody but the Malamutes now. — A. There is 
Trigger and Stephon who has got the store, and there is Tommie Powers of the 
road house — they certainly don't live like he does. 

Q. I will ask you whether the children of these natives attend any school? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do they generally? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know any natives more than 50 years of age down there at Una- 
lakleet, and if so, who? — A. I don't know of any alive that are over 50 years 
that I know of. 

Q. They are comparatively young people, all of them? — A. Well, middle-aged. 

Q. And Unalakleet has been settled by whites about how long to your knowl- 
edge? — A. I was there in 1897 in the spring of the year on a trading schooner, 
and it was an old village then, and I believe that Mr. Englestadt was there 
running a post there. 

Q. So there have been whites there, well, since 1897? — A. To my knowledge. 
I just saw Stephon there then. He is a Russian half-breed. 

Q. Do you know whether any of the natives at Unalakleet have ever attended 
any conventions or any meetings called by what you denominate a chief? — 
A. Outside of their dances I don't. 

Q. Well, were the dances called by the chief or was it a sort of a general 
frame-up among the natives? — A. Whether he set the special dates for those 
dances I could not say. 

Q. You don't know anything about that? — A. No; only that I saw him there. 

Q. All the meetings that you know of were in the nature of social amuse- 
ments, were they not? Did you know of any i^olitical meeting held by the 
natives at any time except so far as they participated in the political meetings 
of the white men? 

Mr. O'Neill. That is objected to on the ground the question assumes some- 
thing not in evidence. 

A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know of any meetings? — ^A. Dances and holidays, that is all I 
know of. 

Q. Now, do you know what proportion of the natives who are on that list 
that you have referred to can read and write? — A. (Referring to list.) I believe 
there are nine there. 

Q. Who can not read or who can? — A. That can read and write. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. Now, you say the children attend school ; that is a native school, it is 
not? — A. The mission school. 

Q. And there are no white children attend that school, are there? — A. Well, 
there are half-breeds. 

Q. Have you been up the Yukon River? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been at Tanana? — A. I have. 

Q. You have observed the Indians at St. James mission? — A. I saw them 
around the mission near the white men's town. 

Q. And they all have log houses? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And their manner of living is similar, is it not, to the manner of living of 
the natives at Unalakleet? — A. It is similar; fishing, hunting, and steamboat- 
ing; and like that, you know. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 347 

Q. Would you consider the natives of St. James mission capable of intelli- 
gently voting upon any political proposition? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial ; not the 
best evidence ; calling for the opinion of the witness, who is not shown to be an 
expert. 

Mr. O'Neill. You brought it out on cross-examination. 

A. Hardly. 

Q. Would you consider the natives of Unalakleet sufficiently intelligent to 
vote upon any political proposition? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objection. 

A. No, sir. 

Mr. O'Neill. I will offer this list, which has previously been shown to the 
witness for identification, and ask that it be marked for identification. 

(Paper received for identification and marked by notary " Contestee's Exhibit 
A.") 

Q. Now, how many natives do you recognize upon that list of 44 names? 

Mr. LoMEN. Let him check them ofC with a pencil. 

Mr. O'Neill. Check oif with a pencil all that you know that are natives. — 
[Witness marks.] A. There are some I haven't marked that I am satisfied I 
know, if I would see them, but not by those names. 

Q. Do you know Mrs. T. A. Powers? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is she an Eskimo? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I see you haven't marked her. — A. Well, I thought maybe you considered 
them the same rights as the white people. 

Q. You just marked those that are natives and not married to the whites? — ■ 
A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LoMEN. How many did you mark there? 

Mr. O'Neill. He marked 11. 

A. There are others I am satisfied I know well, but not by those names. 
Some of them, there is a mistake in their names. 

Q. You have seen Eskimos at St. Michael, have you not, that live at 
CJnalakleet? — A. I have. 

Q. You have been around St. Michael considerable? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were you doing at St. Michael ? — A. Longshoring ; working for the 
company and steamboating and fishing. 

Q. What is the custom of the natives upon this coast — that is, between here 
and St. Michael — with reference to moving any distance from the place of their 
home? — A. Well, they will winter in one village one winter, and they are very 
liable the very next winter to go to another village to live. Sometimes they 
will stop in one village for a considerable length of time, and then finally they 
shift again, but they will move back to their old camps oftentimes, the old 
villages ; they go and come. 

Q. Does the Eskimo ever remove himself for any long period of time from 
the place where he was born; that is, the place of his original home? — A. What 
would you consider a long period of time? 

Q. For instance, would you find a native that was born at Cape Prince of 
Wales permanently establish himself at St. Michael ; is that the custom of the 
race, or is it the custom of the race to remain settled in one particular local- 
ly? — A. In some instances — why, there has been a very few that have left their 
birthplace and never returned — in a few instances only. 

Q. That is always the custom of these various Indians you have men- 
tioned? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During all the time you have known of these various tribes of Indians 
and Eskimos that you have mentioned, have you observed as many as 5 per 
cent of them change their method of livelihood from that method that you first 
observed when you came to the country? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. We are 
talking about the Unalakleet natives now, and it makes no difference what the 
other natives do. 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you observed any change in the method of livelihood with respect 
to the natives living at Unalakleet from the time that you first met them? — • 
A. -The only difference that I can see is that they have a little more, they dress 
a little better, and their houses are a trifle better than they used to be. 

Q. But they still live in the same fashion? — A. On that same principle. 

Mr. O'Neill. I think that is all. 



348 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. I want to ask you a question, and you need not answer it if you don't 
want to. Are you a Republican or a Democrat? — ^A. I don't belong to either 
party. 

Q. Did you vote last election? — A. I did not. 

Q. You have no interest in this case? — A. No, sir. I don't consider the two 
parties that are up — neither candidate for President — suitable. This is relative 
to the Presidency of the United States. 

Q. That is what I have reference to. That is all. 

By Mr. O'Neil. 
Q. And by speaking of that, you know a man in Alaska can not vote for 
President, do you not? — A. Yes; I know that. 

Q. And when you speak of not voting, you mean you are disgusted with the 
political principles of both parties? — A. I was. 
Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 
(Testimony closed.) 

Herbert Spencer. 

RUSSELL BOWEN, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By Mr. O'Neill : 

Q. Mr. Bowen, you were an election officer, were you not, at the last election 
on November 7, 1916? — A. I was. 

Q. What position did you occupy on the election board? — A. Clerk. 

Q. As clerk of said board did you, or did the board, at that time when that 
election was being conducted, have a registration book on the first page of 
which was printed the qualification of the voter, as follows : " Any person of 
the age of twentj'^-one years or more who is a citizen of the United States, who 
has lived in the Territory of Alaska one year and in the judicial division in 
which he or she offers to cast his or her vote thirty days immediately preced- 
ing such election, shall be entitled to vote at all elections held therein; pro- 
vided, that all idiots, insane persons, and persons who have been convicted 
of an infamous crime are excluded from such right and privilege, and provided 
further that no person shall be deemed to have lost his residence by reason 
of his -absence while in the civil or military service of the Territory, or the 
United States, nor while a student at any institution of learning, nor while 
kept a public charge at any poorhouse or any other asylum, nor while confined 
in any public prison, nor while engaged in navigation of the waters of this 
Territory, of the United States, or the high seas." 

Mr. LoMEN. That is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 
It is objected to for the further reason that so far as Delegate elections in 
Alaska are concerned, they are not governed by any law or statute which re- 
quires a registration such as is contemplated by the question asked. 

A. Well, am I to infer from that, from the question you asked, did we have 
a list of the voters of the precinct? 

Q. No ; a book with the language in substance what I read to you which the 
voter signed prior to his receiving his ballot? — A. Oh, no. 

Q. Did you have any registration book, or book of any character, which the 
voter signed prior to receiving his ballot? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. LoMEN. The same objection goes to all these questions. 

Q. And no such book was in the polling place at that time while that election 
was being conducted? — A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. If it had been, you would have known it? — A. Surely. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. As a matter of fact, the votes were registered, were they not, as they 
were cast? — A. Every voter, as he got his ballot, his name was taken down by 
both clerks. 

Q. By the clerks of election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And after the polls were closed the votes were counted by the judges of 
election and were certified to, were they not? — A. They were. 

Q. And sent to the proper authorities, the clerk of the court, and the governor 
of the Territory of Alaska?— A. I presume the clerk sent them to the governor. 
They went to the clerk. 

Q. Were you present when the votes were counted and declared by the 
judges? — A. I was. 

Mr. Lomen. That is all. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 349 

Redirect examination by Mr. O'Neill : 

Q. Wlaeu tliose names were talcen down were they taken down without the 
request of the voters ; that is, without tlie linowledge of the voters or without 
their suggestion? — A. When a voter came up to get his ballot the clerks pro- 
ceeded to write the name on the list. 

Q. But not at the request of the voter? — A. Certainly not. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 
Q. The voter was asked what his name was in each case? — A. Certainly. 
Q. And the clerk wrote it down in the registration book; is that the idea? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. But that was not at the request of the voter? — A. Certainly not. 

Q. On that occasion did not George B. Grigsby, who was a candidate for 
attorney general, pi'otest for the reason of the fact that there was no book kept 
for registration? 

Mr. Lomen: Objected to as not the best evidence. If there was any such 
protest as that, there should be no record if it. 

Q. If you recall, Mr. Bowen, I mean when Judge Adams was sent for and 
he came up? — A. It appears to me there was something of that kind came up, 
but it has slipped my mind, though. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Russell W. Bowen. 

G. A. ADAMS, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. Judge Adams, what official position do you hold? — A. Clerk of the district 
court, second division, Territory of Alaska. 

Q. I will show you this document and ask you, what is that? — A. That is 
a duplicate register. 

Q. Duly certified to by you as the clerk of the district court? — A. Wait just 
a moment ; I haven't finished. I would like to change my answer. This is a 
certified copy of the duplicate register which was returned to the district court 
as part of the election returns of the election of November 7, 1916, from the 
Unalakleet voting precinct. 

■ Mr. O'Neill. I now offer this duplicate register in evidence, which was pre- 
viously marked for identification, and ask that it be marked by the notary 
" Contestee's Exhibit A." and attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

Mr. Lomen. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

Q. You are an attorney at law, are you not. Judge Adams, and entitled to 
practice in all of the courts in the Territory of Alaska? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I show you this statute, chapter 24 of the Session Laws of the Territox'y 
of Alaska for the year 1915, and ask you if that statute is on the official book 
of statutes of the Session Laws of the Territory of Alaska for the year 1915? 

Mr. Lomen. No objection. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that statute is now in full force and effect? 

Mr. Lomen. That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
for the reason that the matters in issue herein involve the election of a Dele- 
gate to Congress and the territorial statutes do not apply ; that the election 
laws for Delegate to Congress is governed by the statutes of Congress wholly 
and entirel3^ 

Mr. O'Neill. The purpose of introducing this testimony is to prove the 
statute of a foreign jurisdiction, the Congress of the United States necessarily 
not taking judicial notice of the local laws of the Territory of Alaska. 

A. It stands as a law of the Territory of Alaska unless repealed or modified 
by the session of the legislature in 1917, as to any repeal or modification. 

Mr. Lomen. I move to strike that out as being an answer that is wholly 
volunteered and passing an opinion by the witness on a question that must be 
determined by the House of Representatives i'tself and not by the opinion of 
this witness. 

Q. At the date you are giving your testimony, to wit, the 25th day of July, 
1917, has any copy of the Session Laws of the Territory of Alaska for the 
session of 1917 arrived at Nome, to your knowledge, any complete copy? — A. 
There has not. 



350 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. Have you any knowledge of any acts passed by the territorial legislature 
for the Territory of Alaska at its last session which altered, amended, or 
repealed chapter 24 of the Session Laws of 1915? 

Mr. LoiiEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

A. I have not. 

Mr. O'Neil. I now offer in evidence chapter 24 of the Session Laws of the 
Territory of Alaska for the year 1915, and ask that a copy thereof be made 
by the notary and marked " Coutestee's Exhibit C," subject to the objection of 
the contestant, and that the same be attached to this deposition and made a 
part hereof. 

Q. I now call your particular attention to chapter 25 of the Session Laws 
of the TerritoiT of Alaska for the session of 1915. and ask you if that statute 
was passed by the territorial legislature and is upon the official book of the 
Session Laws of Alaska for the year 1915? — A. It is. 

Q. Is that statute now in full force and effect? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and 
calling for a conclusion of the witness upon a matter for the House of Repre- 
sentatives to pass upon and not for this witness. 

Mr. O'Neil. The testimony is offered for the same reason as the proof of 
the statute heretofore offered, to wit, to prove a foreign statute before the 
House of Representatives, of which statute said House can not take judicial 
notice. 

A, Unless modified, amended, or repealed during the session of the legislature 
of 1917 this act stands as the law of the Territory of Alaska. 

Q. Have you any knowledge of chapter 25 of the Session Laws of 1915 
being altered, amended, or repealed by the Territorial Legislature? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objections. . 

A. None whatever. 

Mr. O'Neil. I now offer in evidence chapter 25 of the Sessions Laws of the 
Territory of Alaska for the year 1915 and ask that a copy be made thereof by 
the notary and marked " Contestee's Exhibit D," subject to the objection of the 
contestant, and that the same be attached to this deposition and made a part 
hereof. 

Q. Calling your attention again to chapter 24 of the Session Laws of 1915, 
which is an act to define and establish the political status of certain native 
Indians within the Territory of Alaska, has any Indian or Eskimo made appli- 
cation to the district court for the establishment of his political status during 
the time that you have been clerk of said court? 

Mr. Lomen.*^ Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, no 
proper foundation laid, for the reason that the political status of natives can not 
be established by the Territory of Alaska ; it is beyond their power so to do ; 
for the further reason the chapter referred to, chapter 24 of the Session Laws 
of 1915, is entitled "An act to define and establish the political status of cer- 
tain native Indians within the Territory of Alaska," and has nothing to do 
with their qualification as voters. Furthermore, that there is more than one 
subject embraced in said act and not included in the title of said act. For the 
further reason that the law does not pretend or purport to define citizenship or 
the political status of anybody but only to furnish evidence whereby the fact of 
citizenship or political status may be determined as prima facie evidence and 
not of the fact itself. 

A. No application at all has been made under this act. 

Q. And you have been clerk of the court for the second division. Territory of 
Alaska, continuously since the passage of this act until the present time? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Calling your attention to chapter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska for 
the year 1915 and to section 22 of said chapter. I will ask if you, as clerk of the 
court, did provide any polling place within the second division with a book 
known as the registration book, or any equivalent book? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial and 
refers to an act not required by law to govern the election of Delegate to 
Congress. 

A. Every voting precinct in the second division was provided with a registra- 
tion book or, as is termed in the act of Congress of May 7, 1906, " Register 
of voters." 

Q. And the book provided for by you. Judge, was provided under the original 
act of Congress of May 7, 1906, and not in accordance with section 22 of 
chapter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska?— A. The act of Congress of May 7, 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 351 

1906, provided for the election of a Delegate to Congress from Alaska, and con- 
tained specific provisions as to notice of elections, registers, qualification of 
judges, and other details of election. The act of Congress of August 24, 1912, in 
section 4. which is section 412 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska, provided among 
other things as follows : " That the qualifications of electors, the regulations 
governing the creation of voting precincts, the appointment and qualifications 
of election officers, the supervision of elections, the giving of notices thereof, 
the forms of ballots, the register of votes, the challenging of voters, and the 
returns and the canvass of the returns of the result of all such elections for 
members of the legislature shall be the same as those prescribed in the act of 
Congress entitled 'An act providing for the election of a Delegate to the House 
of Representatives from the Territory of Alaska,' approved May 7, 1916." Sec- 
tion 22 of chapter 25 of the act of the Legislature of Alaska, second session, 
provides for the keeping of a registration book and directs that the clerk of the 
court shall publish on the first page of such registration book that which pur- 
ports to be the qualification of voters. The registration book or duplicate 
register which was provided to election officers was one which was the result 
of an attempt to hormonize the act of the legislature with that of Congress. 

Q. Did the registration book provided to every voting precinct within the 
second division of the Territory of Alaska at the election of November 7, 1916, 
complv with section 22 of chapter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska for the year 
1915?' 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial. 

A. Not literally. That which was directed to be printed on the first page of 
the book was omitted because the qualifications as set forth in section 22 of the 
legislative act never were enacted as the qualifications of voters either by the 
Legislature of the Territory of Alaska or by Congress. The only place in which 
these purported qualifications appear in the Session Laws of Alaska are found 
in this section 22, and here it is merely directory to the clerk of the court as 
to what should be printed on the first page of the register. 

Q. Were the election ofl^cers of the various precincts of the second division 
of the Territory of Alaska at said election directed to require each person 
desiring to vote to sign any registration book as a condition precedent to the 
casting of his ballot? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

A. Sections of the law pertaining to elections were printed and furnished to 
the various election boards. • 

Q. Do you recall as to whether or not the directions provided for in section 
22 of chapter 25 of the Session Laws of 1915 were furnished to the various 
election boards? — A. I do not recall. 

Q. Do you know if the voters of any precinct in the second division at such 
election signed a registration book or other book of like character before they 
cast their ballots? 

Mr. LoMEN. Answer that " Yes " or " No." It is only to your knowledge. Do 
you know? 

A. I do not. 

Q. Have you a copy of the instructions given to the election boards at said 
election? — A. In the oflice of the clerk; yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if this document I now show you is a copy of the instruc- 
tions handed to the election boards of the various precincts in the second divi- 
sion. Territory of Alaska, for their guidance during the election of November 7, 
1916?— A. It is. 

Mr. O'Neill. I offer this document in evidence and ask that it be marked 
" Contestee's Exhibit B." 

Mr. LoMEN. That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and for the further reason that the instructions called for or submitted to the 
election boards were not provided for or requied by any act of Congess, and 
that, so far as the act or acts of the legislature purported to require such 
instructions, the act, so far as the election of Delegate to Congress is concerned, 
is wholly void and doesn't control, in view of the fact that Congress itself has 
legislated in regard to the subject matter, and the acts of Congress and the 
acts of the Territorial legislature in that respect are inconsistent with each 
other. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 
Q. Judge Adams, how long since you were admitted to the bar? — A. In 
Alaska? 



352 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

Q. No ; generally.— A. I believe in 1896. 

Q. Have you followed the practice of your profession since that time, gen- 
erally ? — A. Not continuously nor generally ; no, sir. 

Q. How many years did you follow the practice of law and how long ago?— A. 
In Alaska since about the year 1907 up to 1914, since which date I have not en- 
gaged in practice. 

Q. Now, as I understand you, you stated on your direct examination that the 
Territorial acts of the legislature, session of 1915, are upon the statute books, 
and the law, because not amended or repealed by any act of the legislature. 
Was there any other qualification in that?^A. It was my meaning that the act, 
chapter 24, remains the official statute of the Territory of Alaska unless repealed 
or modified by the session of the legislature of 1917. 

Q. What about Congress? 

Mr. O'Neill. That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Mr. LoMEN. It is cross-examination ; it goes to competency. 

Mr. O'Neill. And not proper cross-examination. 

A. I was not including within the meaning of my answer to the question just 
asked, or in my answer given in the direct examination, the question of the 
validity or legality of any parts or portions of chapter 25. 

Q. Or chapter 24? — A. Chapter 24 is a different subject. 

Q. I know, but you testified 

A. And the same meaning applies in reference to my answers concerning 
chapter 24. 

Q. But now, as a matter of fact, if either of these statutes had been repealed, 
amended, or altered by Congress, that would be quite as effective as though the 
legislature had done so, would it not, as a matter of law? 

Mr. O'Neill. Object to the question upon the ground that chapter 24 of the 
Session LaAVS of 1915 is not in conflict with any act of Congress. 

A. In my opinion it would be much more so. 

Q. Now, the legislature has not plenary power with reference to the legisla- 
tion, but is authorized only to enact such laws as Congress has permitted them 
by the enabling act to enact. Isn't that true? — A. I so understand it. 

Q. Now, with reference to the election of Delegate to Congress, has Congress 
authorized the legislature of the Territory of Alaska to enact any laws govern- 
ing such elections? In other words, has not Congress itself legislated upon that 
subject fully ?-iA. There are certain provisions in the enabling act, which is the 
act of August 24, 1912, governing elections in the Territory of Alaska. Within 
the limits of these provisions it s presumed that the legslature would enact 
nothing which would be in conflict. 

Q. By comparison have you discovered that the provisions of chapter 25 of 
the Session Laws of 1915 differ from and are in conflict with the act of Congress 
upon the subject of elections in the Territory of Alaska?— A. Chapter 25 of the 
Territorial act conflicts in many respects with the provisions of the congressional 
acts concerning elections in Alaska. 

Q. And would you say more especially in the matter of the election of Dele- 
gate to Congress? In other words the act of Congress of May 7, 1906, provided 
for the election of Delegates without reference to any other elections? — A. It 
did. 

Q. And stands as a separate and distinct provision in regard to such elec- 
tion? — A. It so stands except as it may be somewhat modified by provisions of 
the enabling act which is the act, of Congress of August 24, 1912. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. O'Neill : 

Q. With respect to chapter 24 of the session laws you distinguish do you not 
that the right of citizenship and the right of suffrage are two separate and dis- 
tinct rights? In other words you realize as a lawyer that a person may be a 
citizen and still not have the right to vote?— A. The rights are altogether 
different. 

Recross examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. I will ask if chapter 24 purports to be in its nature a naturalization act 
and if the Constitution of the United States does not delegate to Congress the 
sole power to enact laws with reference to naturalization? 

Mr. O'Neill. Object to that upon the ground that the citizenship or non- 
citizenship of the natives of the Territory of Alaska .are provided for solely by 
article 3 of the treaty concerning the cession of the Russian possessions in 
North America to the United States. 



WIOKEBSHAM VS. SULZER. 353 

A. Chapter 24 I am not as familiar with as chapter 25. Chapter 24 of the act 
of the legislature, Session Laws of 1915, in the last part of section 1 reads as 
follows : " Have the fact of his citizenship definitely established by complying 
with the terms hereafter set forth." This I do not understand to cover or 
include the right of suffrage. 

Q. And the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
which was passed subsequent to that treaty, wherein it is stated that all per- 
sons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citi- 
zens of the United States. Is that true ? — A. In a very general sense ; yes, sir, 

Q. And does the election law governing the election of Delegate to Congress- 
for the Territory of Alaska provide that citizens of the age of 21 years, I 
think it reads male citizens of the age of 21 years shall have the right of suf- 
frage? — A. The qualifications of voters, which is the right of suffrage, in 
Alaska, are contained in section 3 of the act of Congress of May 7, 1906 (sec. 
394, Compiled Laws of Alaska), and reads as follows: "All male citizens of 
the United States, 21 years of age and over, who are actual and bona fide 
residents of the Territory of Alaska and who have been such residents con- 
tinuously during the entire year immediately preceding the election and who 
have been such resident continuously for 30 days next preceding the election 
in the precinct in which they vote, shall be qualified to vote for the election of 
the Delegate from Alaska." The qualifications as prescribed in this act have 
uever been modified by any legislative act except the purported modification 
contained in section 22 of chapter 25 of the act of the legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, session of 1915. 

Q. And the further provision of chapter 1 of the Session Laws of 1913 grant- 
ing the elective franchise to women? — ^A. Yes; and this was enacted by the 
territorial legislature under an act of Congress authorizing — there was a special 
act authorizing it. 

Q. Now, then, the sole qualification of a voter, then, is his citizenship, is it 
not? Or put it age and citizenship? — A. The first mentioned is citizenship. 

Q. Exactly. Now there are no other qualifications than age and residence 
besides citizenship, is there? — A. No other qualifications than those contained 
in section 394 of the Compiled Laws above quoted except as the right to vote 
was extended to wonien by the Territorial act under authority of a con- 
gressional act. 

Q. Now, so far as Eskimos are concerned, if they be citizens of the United 
States and have the qualifications in regard to residence and age, they would 
be voters, would they not, granting that they are citizens? — A. I know of no 
reason why they would not be legally entitled to vote under those conditions. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. O'Neiix : 

Q. An Eskimo born within the Territory of Alaska is not necessarily a citi- 
zen, is he? — A. The status as to citizenship of the Eskimo of Alaska is not 
well determined by laws of Congress and decisions. There are certain pro- 
visions in the treaty of cession of the Territory of Alaska from Russia to the 
United States whereby the inhabitants of the ceded territory are secured in 
certain rights in two classes, one class being the uncivilized native tribes and 
the other class embracing all other natives. 

Q. You understand, do you not, as a lawyer, Judge, that the term " Indian " 
and "Eskimo" are in legal parlance, synonymous terms? — A. I do not. I un- 
derstand that for certain purposes the terms have been declared to be synony- 
mous. 

Q. With respect to this portion of article 3 of the treaty of cession " The un- 
civilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United 
States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that 
country." You understand, do you not, that provisions with respect to the 
Indians in the matter of education and sanitary regulations contained in the 
Revised Statutes of the United States are also applicable to the Eskimo under 
said article of the treaty? — A. Under the liquor law of the^ Territory of Alaska, 
as enacted by Congress, " Indian " and " Eskimo " are declared to be synony- 
mous. Under some decisions relative to certain rights of inhabitants of 
Alaska " Indian " and " Eskimo " have been declared to be synonymous terras 
in other respects. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 
132S9— IT 23 



354 WIOKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Re-reeross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. Has there not also been decisions to the effect that the Indian and the 
Eskimo are a different race of people and that the term " Indian " and 
"Eskimo" is not at all convertible? 

Mr. O'Neill. Do you mean legal decisions, Judge? 

Mr. LoMEN. Yes ; legal decisions. 

A. From racial considerations I have always understood the terms are not 
synonymous. 

Q. Yes. Now, having reference to the date of the treaty of cession and the 
adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, which is first in 
order of time, the treaty or the fourteenth amendment, as adopted? — A. The 
treaty was in 1867 and the other 1869. The treaty of cession was first in 
order of time. 

Q. And if the Eskimo comes within the purview of the fourteenth amendment 
to the Constitution, then they have been declared to be citizens of the United 
States, have they not, if born in Alaska? — A. At the present moment I can cite 
no authority to this effect other than general application of the words con- 
tained in the fourteenth amendment. 

Q. Now. as far as you know, an Eskimo born in Alaska and subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, is he not ; 
isn't that the exact language when it says "All persons " ? 

Mr. O'Neill. What do you mean now? Are you asking him a question of 
fact or a question of his construction of the statute? 

Mr. LoMEN. He is an expert witness, a lawyer. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is what I am getting at. 

A. The answer to this question involves a construction of the fourteenth 
amendment which has been cited 

Mr. O'Neill. I want to interpose an objection to that question on the ground 
it can not be ascertained from the question as to whether or not a question of 
fact, to wit, as to whether or not an Eskimo is a citizen of the United States, 
or a question of law, as to whether or no an Eskimo under the fourteenth 
amendment of the Constitution of the United States is a citizen of the United 
States as a matter of law is involved. 

A. (continuing). In connection with the rights secured to the inhabitants of 
the ceded territory as set forth in article 3 of the treaty of cession. At the 
present time I am not in a position to state whether this exact point has been 
construed by the proper court. 

Mr. Lomen. I will grant you that it has not, but is an original proposition 
in taking advantage of the Constitution itself and your knowledge of whether 
the Eskimo is a person or not, and the further fact as to whether he is subject 
to the jurisdiction of the United States would lead you to believe that he was 
a citizen of the United States and if such, being over the age of 21 years, and 
liaving the residence required by the election laws, he would not be a voter. 

A. An opinion such as called for in the question would not be of much value 
•unless formed under considerable investigation, but it would seem that the 
words employed in the fourteenth amendment are of such breadth as to cover 
or include Eskimos in Alaska. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. How long have you been in Alaska? — A. Practically 20 years. 

Q. Do you consider there are any uncivilized people of the Eskimo race 
in Alaska? — A. The term " uncivilized " is one to which many meanings are 
ascribed. 

Q. Within the language of article 3 of the treaty of cession, do you considei. 
that there are any uncivilized people of the Eskimo race in Alaska? 

Mr. Lomen. You may add this : " Within the " territory now occupied and 
for several years have been occupied by the white man." 

Mr. O'Neill. No objection to that. 

A. The provisions 'of article 3 speak of the uncivilized tribes in Alaska, ii. 
my residence in this portion of Alaska for IS years I have never had knowledge 
of the existence of tribal relations among the Eskimo. 

Q. Would you call them civilized or uncivilized — that is the meat of th^ 
question? — A. The rights insured under article 3 are to uncivilized tribes. I\ 
there are no tribes, I don't understand that this has application to an individual 
Eskimo as to whether or not he may be civilized or uncivilized. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 355 

Q. You don't seem to catch what I am trying to get at. Taking the entlix 
Eskimo race as a tribe for the purpose of this question ; do vou consider them 
civilized or uncivilized; and if civilized, what proportion thereof do you con- 
sider civilized?— A. Confining my answer to the Eskimo residents of the Norton 
Sound and adjacent Bering Sea portions of the Seward Peninsula, I regard the 
Eskimos as civilized within certain degrees. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

G. A. Adams. 

ROBERT JAMES, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. Mr. James, what ofiicial position did you hold on the 7th day of November, 
1916, in the second division, Territory of Alaska? — A. In relation to the elec- 
tion? 

Q. Yes. — A. I was on the election board, a member of the election board. 

Q. What precinct? — A. I think it is the third ward, is it not? 

Q. Yes, it is the third ward. As a member of the election board did you 
or did the board have a registration book or other similar book which the 
voters signed prior to receiving or casting thir ballot? 

Mr. LoMEN. That is objected to as being irrelevant, incompetent, and imma- 
terial, no law or statute providing for any registration of voters so far the 
election of Delegate to Congress is concerned. 

A. In other words, what you mean is. Did they sign themselves before regis- 
tration ? 

Q. Yes. — A. No ; we had nothing of that kind. 

Q. Was any book signed at their request — that is, did the voters request you 
to sign any registration book or what purported to be a registration book for 
them? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. As a matter of fact, the names of all voters were registered by the clerks 
3f election? — A. They were. 

Q. In the presence of the voter?— A. Yes, sir. I can give you the procedure 
in which our ward was conducted, if you wish it. 

Mr. O'Neill. I would like to have you do it, Mr. James. 

A. There were two ballot clerks. As the voters came in they went up and 
asked for a ballot, and the ballot clerk would ask their names and' would register 
their name, then they would pass the ballot to the voter, the voter would take 
the ballot, and after he marked it he would come up and give it to the board — 
the inspectors, you know — who received it, and each ballot was numbered. 

Q. Duplicate numbers? — A. Yes, sir; duplicate numbers. That number was 
perforated and was torn oft from the ballot, and as the receiver would take the 
ballot he would call the number, say, No. 172, for illustration, and the name, and 
the ballot clerk would respond to that when the name was called that he had re- 
ceived that ballot. Then the ballot was deposited in the box, and the name of 
the voter was given to the registration clerk. 

Q. For instance, " Mr. Hugh O'Neill, No. 172, voted." The name and the num- 
ber would be compared? — A. Yes; the name and the number were compared 
every time on every ballot that was placed in the box. The name was regis- 
tered by the clerk provided for tallying the ballots and receiving the names and 
registering. 

Q. Were there two sets of names or one kept? — A. There were two election 
^ lerks, and each one wrote the name down. 

Q. Did they each write the name of the voter at the time he received the ballot, 
:r did one write the name at the time he received the ballot and one write the 
lame at the time the ballot was voted? — A. The clerk who delivered the ballot to 
"he voter he would write the name, and then when the voter M'ould present his 
oallot the clerks of the election board — not the ballot clerk but the registration 
clerk — when the name was called they would register the name, set the number 
down and all numbers compared to this number that was given by the ballot 
clerk. 

Q. Now, none of these names were written down at the request of the 
voters? — A. No; I never heard of that. We conducted our election just as we 
were instructed to by the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court came down 
there; it seems they had trouble in one of the wards up here, and they sent for 
him. He went up there, and then he came along down to our ward ; he came 



356 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

down to see how the election was being conducted, and he said it was satisfac- 
tory and right. We had the instructions to go by, and we tliought we were 
following the instructions. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

RoBT. James. 

W. R. HAYES, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. Mr. Hayes, what official position did you hold in the town of Nome, Alaska, 
on the 7th day of November, 1916? — A. I was one of the judges of the election 
board for the second precinct in the city of Nome. 

Q. Did you have any book known as the registration book or any similar 
book in which voters signed their name prior to receiving their ballots? 

Mr. LoMEN. That is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, 
and for the reason that there is no law or statute requiring such registration 
book, so far as the election of Delegate to Congress is concerned, other than a 
purported act of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska, which is incon- 
sistent with the election laws provided for by Congress. 

A. Not that I recollect of. The only thing we had was the instructions as to 
the qualifications of a voter. 

Q. Did any voter register his name in any book at said election prior to the 
receiving of his ballot or at any time? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objection. 

A. No ; he did not. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Mr. Lomen. No cross. 

W. R. Hays. 

E. E. ADAMS, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. Mr. Adams, what official position did you hold in the second division of 
the Territory of Alaska on the Tth day of November, 1916? — A. One of the 
judges of election for precinct No. 1. 

Q. Did you or did the election board of that precinct on the Tth day of 
November, 1916, have a book known as the registration book or any book 
wherein the voters signed their name either prior to voting or subsequent to 
voting ? 

Mr. Lomen. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and for 
the reason that there is no law or statute requiring such registration book or 
such registration except an act of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska 
which is inconsistent with the act of Congress regulating the election of Dele- 
gates to Congress and which alone govern such elections. 

A. We did not. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Mr. Lomen. No cross. 

E. E. Adams. 

LOUIS ERICKSON, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. How long have you resided in the Territory of Alaska, Mr. Erickson? — 
A. Eighteen years. 

Q. Do you know the location of the village called Unalakleet? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How frequently have you been in that village in the last five years? — 
A. Well,, about five days a month ; something like that. 

Q. What has been your business? — A. Mail carrier. 

Q. And as such mail carrier you passed through the village and stopped there 
overnight the number of times indicated by you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During those instances did you become acquainted with the population 
of the village? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have observed them from time to time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You know their habits and general characteristics, their habits, etc.? — 
A. Well, yes ; to a certain extent. 

Q. I show you this document, marked " Contestee's Exhibit A," and ask you 
if you recognize any of the names on that document purporting to be a list of 
the voters of the Unalakleet voting precinct ? — A. Yes ; I recognize the most 
of the names. 



WTCKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 357 

Q. You know nearly all of the people in that village?— A. Yes ; prettj- much so. 

Q. Approximately how many natives do you recognize upon this list? 

Mr. LoMEN. Ob.lected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

Answer. Seventeen. 

Q. You recognize 17? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How far does your mail route run? — A. From Chinik to Unalakleet. That 
is, once in awhile we switched around and I came right through from Una- 
lakleet to Nome. 

Q. You are familiar with the natives from Nome to St. Michael? — A. Yes, 
sir; pretty much so. 

Q. How do the natives average, from the standpoint of intelligence, in the 
different villages from Nome to St. Michael? Are they pretty nearly all upon 
the same average or are there some villages where the natives are unusually 
intelligent? — A. Well, they all know, the most of them, the coming genera- 
tion of young people, they nearly all have good schooling. They go to school ; 
that is, since the mission came into existence, but the bigger portion of the 
natives at Unalakleet are brighter on account of ha^^ng better teachers 
there than in other parts — that is between Chinik and Unalakleet or St. 
Michael. 

Q. How long have the missionaries been teaching the natives in Unalakleet 
to your knowledge? — A. Ever since I came to Alaska and before that; I guess 
20, years. I could not say for sure. I know they have been there for 18 
years. 

Q. At Unalakleet? — A. Yes, 'sir; ever since I came to the country, and I 
have been here 18 years, and I believe the mission was here before I came into 
Nome. 

Q. What would you say with respect to whether or no the natives of Una- 
lakleet are sufficiently intelligent to exercise the obligations of suffrage? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and no 
proper foundation laid, and calling for the opinion of the witness not shown 
to be qualified. 

A. I don't know as I can answer that question. They can read and write. 
I really haven't got an opinion about it. 

Q. Did you ever hear the natives discussing any political subject? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial. 

A. Yes ; I do know one time ; just once. 

Mr. LoMEN. When and where was this? 

A. In Unalakleet. 

Q. From what you know of the natives of Unalakleet would you say that they 
were sufficiently educated to pass upon the merits or demerits of a political 
proposition? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to for the same reason as above stated. 

A. Why, I have never talked with them. I have been over to the school and 
seen them in school and seen them write and read. As to their ability other- 
wise or whether they know anything about what the law requires of them, I 
don't know ; I could not say. 

Q. You have seen them very often for the last five years? — A. For the last 
eight years. 

Q. Now, you have discussed other matters with them from time to time, 
have you not? — A. No, sir. 

Q. What method of livelihood is adopted by them? — A. Well, some of them 
\vill work for white people if they have a chance, and fishing and hunting is 
how they make a living at most. 

Q. Have they materially altered their mode of livelihood since you first knew 
them ? — A. To a certain extent they have ; yes, sir. 

Q. In what respect? — A. Well they have better houses, and some of them have 
better clothing and others haven't. When they were living out in the country 
these natives naturally saved their furs and used it for clothing, which is neces- 
sary in the winter. They sell their furs and buy white men's clothes. They try 
to live like a white man, but they haven't got enough money to do it. Some of 
them are worse off now in a way than they were while they had their furs and 
lived out in the countiT entirely. 

Q. Other than the fact that some of them wear better clothes and live in 
better houses, have they materially changed their method of livelihood? — 
A. The sanitary conditions are far better ; yes, sir. 

Q. Do you I'ecall in what other respect they have changed their method of 
livelihood? — A. Well, it is hard to answer a question of that kind for this 



358 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

reason : Some of them are improving and otliers are losing their ambition for 
hunting and fisliing, trying to live like the white men, and they can not do it 
because they haven't got the means. They can not get the work that is 
required for them to live that way. 

Q. And as the result of that they are living practically in the same condition 
as when first you saw them? — A. Well, they have improved their methods in 
building houses, and they are cleaner, and some of them are .a good deal more 
industrious than others. 

Q. They all live together in families and in villages, do they not, as they 
did prior to the advent of the white man? — A. No; they are scattered around 
a good deal more now than they were then. Before, when I first came down the 
coast, Unalakleet was the main village. Now they have moved to Shackloteck, 
and they have got a school there also, and there used to be a place called Bonanza 
farther up, between Shackloteck and Isaacs Point. The most of them have 
moved over to the Koyuk and the rest of them have gone to the mission at 
Koyataluk. 

Q. Have any of the natives in Unalakleet left the place of their original 
abode and taken up homes among the white population of Nome or any orner 
place, to your knowledge? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many of them? — A. Well, there are two or three families who are con- 
ducting a road house along the line. There is one at Foot Hill, one at Bonanza, 
and one at Koyataluk, and one at Isaacs Point — that is four. 

Q. You have stopped at those road houses frequently? — A. All the time. 

Q. Did yoia, on any occasion of your stopping at those road houses, near 
any discussion between the Eskimo of any public questions? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial. 

A. No ; I haven't. 

Q. How many of the Eskimos upon this list that I show you (Exhibit A) do 
you think would be competent to vote at an election such as was held last 
November ? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and no 
proper foundation laid, and calling for the opinion of the witness upon a matter 
in Avhich he has not shown himself to be qualified. 

A. I don't know. 

Q. Do you know of anyone on that list yoiT would consider competent to 
vote? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objections. 

A. No ; I could not say. because I have never talked with them on that sub- 
ject at all. There are several of them here who are intelligent and read and 
write as well as any white man ; but, as to whether they are qualified to vote 
or not, I don't know. 

Q. You wouldn't swear that anyone on that list was qualified to vote, to your 
knowledge? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. You said you would not say that you could name anyone who was quali- 
fied. Can you name anyone who is not qualified to vote? — A. I don't know as 
I can answer that question now. I don't know anything about the older people. 

Mr. Lomen. You should not testify to things you don't know about. — A. Well, 
I don't know anything about it, then. 

Q. Speaking of the qualifications, you know a great many white people here 
not as well qualified as the average Eskimo down at Unalakleet, do you not? — A. 
I know some. 

Q. I mean of those who are voters? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And is there any appreciable difference in the mode of living between the 
Eskimo down at Unalakleet and the whites living at Unalakleet outside of the 
mission people? — A. Those that are married to Eskimos are very much the same. 

Q. Are a great many of the Eskimos who are upon that list married to white 
men? — A. There is Mrs. Bradley, Mrs. Erick Johnson, Mrs. Powers, Mrs. Bason; 
I guess that is all. 

Q. Now, have you discovered that any of the Eskimos down at Unalakleet 
maintain what is generally known as tribal relations? — A. No; not now any 
more. 

Mr. Lomen. That Is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. O'Neill : 
Q. Mr. Erickson, do you want to put yourself on record as saying that the 
average Eskimo that you meet on the street is entitled to vote? — A. No, sir. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 359 

Q. Now, do you want to put yourself on record as saying that 10 per cent 
of the Eskimos in Unalakleet are of sufficient intelligence to vote? — A. Well, I 
don't know ; no, 1 would not. I will answer the question this way, that they 
read and write, that is all I know about them. 

Q. You have been in Alaska for some 18 years? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now. all of us in Alaska know more or less about the Eskimo and we 
know his habits and his manner of livelihood, and we know the things that 
appeal to him. Now. would you say. knowing the Eskimo casually as you have 
for that length of time, that as many as 10 per cent of them in Unalakleet were 
sufficiently qualified to vote? — A. Well, I don't iinderstand. I will have to ask 
a question. If a man gets to read and write, is he qualified to vote? 

Q. I will ask you this question : That knowing the Eskimos in Unalakleet 
and knowing the Eskimos generally as you have for 18 years, do you think 
that 10 per cent of the Eskimos in Unalakleet could intelligently vote upon any 
political question? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as calling for the opinion of the witness and as 
irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial and no proper foundation laid. 

A. I think that some of them are, yes. sir; I think that some of them are 
qualified. 

Q. Well, what proportion of the Eskimos in Unalakleet do you think are 
qualified to vote? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objections. 

A. I don't know all of them, but I know that some of them are. 

Q. Well, A^hat proportion of them that you know do you think qualified to 
vote? 

Mr. Lome??. Same objections. 

A. Well, if an Eskimo is a citizen — there is Maurino Johnson is one of them ; 
there is Englestadt, too, he is a half-breed ; there is Stefanssen, he is a half- 
breed ; and there is Michael Ivanoff, he is the school-teacher, he is also a half- 
breed ; there is Eben 

Q. Is he a half-breed? — A. No. sir. There is David, he is also intelligent. 

Q. Is he a half-breed? — A. No, sir. And there is — I can not think of any 
more. 

Q. Do you know Eben's last name?— A. No; I don't know any of their last 
names. 

Q. You don't know David's last name? — A. No, sir. 

Q. And you still think he is entitled to vote? — A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. Approximately how many full-blooded Eskimos were in Unalakleet when 
you were there last winter ? — A. Oh, about 40 or 50, I guess ; probably more 
than that. 

Q. Now, for the last five or six years there has been practically the same 
families living there, hasn't there? — A. No; there has been as high as 200 living 
there, but they have moved away now to different places. 

Q. These 40 or 50, they have been there for the last five or six years, have 
they not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Out of these 40 or 50, judging from what you know of them that you recall 
right now, do you think would have a right to vote — the full-blooded Eski- 
mos ? — 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and I 
object for the further reason that the number caller for now is far in excess 
of the number shown whose names appear upon the register, and it isn't shown 
that the number who are not entitled to vote in the opinion of witness did vote 
in fact. 

A. Oh, about five or six of them that I know of; that is all, about, that I 
know. 

Q. Do you know about how many Eskimos there are in Nome living over on 
the Sandspit? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial. 

A. I don't. 

Q. Have you any idea? — A. No, sir. 

Q. How many Eskimos do you know in Nome? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial. 

A. I don't know any. 

Q. Don't you know the names of any of the Eskimos in Nome? — A. Yes, sir, 
one ; that is a fellow by the name of Joe, he was herding deer for Lomen & Co. 

Q. And that is the only Eskimo you know in Nome? — A. That I know well 
enough to speak to. * 



360 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEB. 

Q. How many do you know by sight? — A. Pretty near all of them. 

Q. How many have you seen in Nome? 

Mr. LoMEN. That is Objected to as immaterial. 

Q. How many have you seen in Nome? — A. You mean that are living here 
now? 

Q. Yes, sir ; that are living here now? — A. About three of them. 

Q. There are just three that you can recall? — A. Yes, sir; that I can recall. 

Q. Well, you have been down town evenings in Nome frequently and have 
seen in the neighborhood of 15 or 20 Eskimos congregated ?— A. No ; I have not. 

Q. Were you here the day the excursionists were here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in Barracks Square when the Eskimos held that exhibition? — 
A, No ; I was not. 

Q. Did you see any of the athletic exercises pulled off by the Eskimos? — ^A. 
I just saw a glance of one out in tlie kayak as I passed ; yes, sir ; that is all ; I 
didn't see any of the exercises. 

Q. What is the largest number of Eskimos you have seen together within the 
last two years in Nome, that you recall, approximately? — A. Fifteen or twenty, 
I guess, the Fourth of July ; that is the largest I can recollect. 

Q. Have you observed their manner of livelihood in Nome? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You don't know how they live on the Sandspit? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever been over there? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Never in your life? — A. Yes; I have been. 

Q. How frequently? — A. Not this year. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is a leading question. 

Q. Now, will you say those 15 or 20 — what is your best jucu ment, from what 
knowledge you have, of their method of livelihood in Nome as to their qualifica- 
tins to become citizens? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as wholly immaterial. 

A. I don't know nothing about the Eskimos in Nome in so far as their liveli- 
hood is concerned. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

By Mr. Lomen : 
Q. You don't know who voted at the last election down there at (Jnalakleet? — 
A. No ; I don't know ; I was here in Nome. 

Louis Eeikson. 

FRED LARSON, a witness produced on behalf of contestee, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 

By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. How long have you been in the second division, Mr. Larson? — A. I have 
been here about 23 years. 

Q. You have considerable knowledge of the Eskimos residing in the second 
division, have you not? — A. Yes, sir; I have. 

Q. And you have observed them considerable during that 23 years of your 
residence? — A. Nearly always; yes, sir. 

Q. Has the Eskimo changed his manner of livelihood materially from the 
time that you first observed them until the present date? — A. Some; to an 
extent. 

Q. To what extent? — A. They have been bettering their condition in living, 
keeping a little cleaner, and getting a little better houses ; and some of them 
are trying to live like the white man's style to a certain extent. 

Q. Is the proportion that are living after the white man's style large or 
small? — A. I don't know what you mean. All there are in Alaska? 

Q. No ; I mean in the second division ; those in the second division. — A. The 
most of them are living in the native style. 

Q. In fact, very few of them are living the habits of civilized life? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now, I show you this duplicate register, marked " Exhibit A," and ask 
you if you recognize any of the names upon that? — A. Yes, sir; I do recognize 
seevral of them. There are lots of those that are white people. No ; I don't 
recognize them by the name of the white person. 

Q. But you are thoroughly familiar with the Eskimo population at Una- 
lakleet ? — A. Yes, sir ; they all know me and I think I know all them. 

Q. What percentage of the Eskimo population of Uualakleet would you con- 
sider of sufficient intelligence to exercise the obligations of suffrage or of 
voting? 



WICKEBSHAM VS. SULZEE. 361 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial and no 
proper foundation laid and calling for tlie opinion of ttie witness upon a matter 
in which he has not shown himself to be competent. 

A. Well, I don't know a full-blooded native at all that I would put my opinion 
on as civilized enough for to vote. There might be. As far as my opinion, I 
don't meet anyone yet. 

Mr. O'Neill. No ; and I agree with you. 

Q. The natives of Unalakleet are practically living in the same state as the 
natives of Nome, are they not? — A. Well, some, and some are living better; the 
conditions are better down there. 

Q. Is that by reason of the fact they are closer to their hunting grounds and 
spend more time in their hunting and fishing industry? — A. Well, yes; they 
have more industry and better schools ; the mission is around there and they 
are more away from the white people — they are away from the city. 

Mr. LoMEN. In other words, they are unspoiled by the white people? — A. 
Yes, sir ; if you take it that way, maybe. 

Q. What buHiness is pursued by the majority of the natives of Unalakleet? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial. 

Q. In other words, how do they earn their livelihood? — ^A. Oh, by fishing, 
some by building boats and freighting, some of them ; some of them work, 
maybe, for white people for certain times. 

Q. You have been a trader? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever heard a discussion among the natives upon the merits of 
any political proposition? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as immaterial and incompetent. 

A. I never have. 

Q. As a trader, you have had a great deal of experience with the natives? — 
A. Yes ; I have had more or less. 

Q. And do you think that they are generally qualified to pass intelligently 
upon the merits of any political proposition? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, no proper 
foundation laid, the witness has not shown himself to be competent and calling 
for his opinion. 

A. Not to my knowledge ; I could not state. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. Your wife is a native woman, an Eskimo, is she not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How often have you been in Unalakleet during the last five years? — A. 
In the last five years. I don't believe I have been there more than twice since 
1906 ; I think I have been there only twice. The second time I didn't quite 
reach Unalakleet. 

Q. And you have been there only once in 10 years? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you stop when you were there? — A. I stayed that time a 
little over two weeks, pretty near three weeks. 

Q, What time of the year was it?— A. I arrived there New Year's Day. 

Q. It was in midwinter, then? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did you visit all the cabins? — A. I visited most of them; yes, sir. 
They came and invited me many places. 

Q. Do you know anything about who voted at Unalakleet? — A. Not a thing. 

Q. Do you know whether the Eskimo of Unalakleet belong to any tribe ; and 
if so, what tribe do they belong to? — A. At Unalakleet there are some belong to 
three tribes ; there are Eskimos of three tribes there. 

Q. Now, what are the three tribes?— A. There is one tribe belongs to Kavara- 
mut. 

Q. They are from up around Mary's Igloo? — A. Yes, sir. And the others 
belong to the Selevickmeet and the Unaleet. 

Q. And where are the Selevick from; where is the home of their tribe? — 
A. At Selewick. 

Q. Where is that? — A. It is between Candle and Kotzebue. 

Q. And where was the third you mentioned, the Unaleets ; where is their 
home? — A. They are around Unalakleet, between Unalakleet, St. Michael, and 
the mouth of the Yukon ; they are scattered between those points. 

Q. Have those natives who live at Unalakleet severed their relations from the 
Mary's Igloo tribe and those from the mouth of the Yukon and St. Michael ; 
have they severed their relations with those other people? — A. You mean if 
they have been mixed up? 



362 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

Q. They are not mixed up any more, I believe?— A. Yes ; they are. 

Q. You mean in blood, but I mean, do they still keep up their relations be- 
tween the two places; have they got any chief? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. They never did have, did they? — A. In olden times they had some they 
called chiefs. 

Q. A medicine man ? — A.. Well, there were doctors and medicine men ; they 
call the doctors medicine men. The chief is a person who is well ofC and has 
influence more or less over the natives. 

Q. Because of his wealth and ability? — A. Yes, sir; his ability. 

Q. Not because they elected him, but because he simply A. In one way, 

and then there is some ability too. 

Q. On the part of the man who is the leader? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is a sort of leader among them? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They look up to him? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But have they any laws? — A. In the early days they had some sort of law 
of their own. 

Q. How long ago?— A. In 1899 and 1900. 

Q. Are they living under any laws now that you know of except the laws of 
the United States? — A. You mean down that way? 

Q. Down at Unalakleet ; yes, sir. — A. No ; I don't believe so. 

Q. Are they living under the leadership of any chief at Unalakleet? — A. I 
don't believe so. 

Q. And they live pretty much like the white people, don't they? — A. Tliey 
try to. 

Q. And do they succeed reasonably well in living like white people? — A. Yes; 
they do. 

Q. Eat the same kind of food largely? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Have the same kind of furniture? — A. Some of them do. 

Q. And the same kind of clothing? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they read and write, most of them? — ^A. The yoiinger people do; 
they are going to school and getting an education, and they learn pretty fast. 

Q. They are a quite intelligent race of people? — A. They are. 

Q. Good imitators? — A. Yes; they are. 

Q. And they are peaceable? — A. Yes; they are. 

Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. O'Neill : 

Q. The older people can not read or write, can they; that is, generally? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. And what language do they use in their conversation, English or Es- 
kimo? — A. Most of them use, between themselves, the Tiative language. 

Q. Don't even the younger people, Avhen they go home, use the native lan- 
guage generally? — A. The families, you mean? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Most of them do. 

Mr. O'Neill. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 
Q. Do most of the Eskimos at Unalakleet speak English sufliciently to get 
along with the white men? — A. Yes. You meaivmost of them? 
Q. Yes; most of them? — A. Yes; they get along. 
Q. In our language, I mean? — A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. LoMEN. That is all. 

Feedeeik Laesen. 

FRANK MARTIN, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 
By Mr. O'Neill: 

Q. How long have you been in Alaska? — A. About 18 or 19 years. 

Q. I will show you this document, " Contestee's Exhibit A," and ask you if 
you recognize any of the names on that? — A. I will tell you, when I was asked 
about this notice, you know, I was under the impression it was about the 
natives of Nome, and later on this was given to me — a copy of this, you know. 
Now, I haven't been to Unalakleet. I made a trip there and was there about 
five days; that was in 1899, on the steamer Albion. I don't believe my testi- 
mony would be of any use to you regai'ding the natives of Unalakleet. There 
might be a couple of them I might be able to recall. I know Stefanssen by his 
coming up here every summer, and half a dozen more. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 363 

Q. You are not very familiar witli these Eskimos upon this list marked 
Exhibit A? — A. No; I am not. 

Q. Are you familiar with the Eskimos around Nome? — A. I am. 

Q. How many Eskimos are in Nome now, apiDroximately, to the best of your 
knowledge?— A. Well, probably 300 or 250. 

Q. You have observed the Eskimos for the last 17 or 18 years around Nome 
and vicinity ? — A. Yes ; a little too much. 

Q. Have you noticed any appreciable change in their method of living from 
the time that you first observed them, as a general rule, until the present 
time? 

Mr. LoMEN. That is objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial 
and no proper foundation laid, and for the further reason that the witness is 
not one of the witnesses named in the notice of the taking of these depositions. 

A. Well, there are a few — there are exceptions — there are probably half a 
dozen that went into a little business, like, say, like building a schooner, and 
went in trading, and some of them started to work for some white folks, and 
that is about all the change that I have seen. 

Q. Out of those 2.50 natives that you know in Nome how many would you 
think would be sulhciently qualified to exercise the elective franchise? 

Mr. LoMEN. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial,- no 
proper foundation laid, and calls for the opinion of a witness not shown to be 
competent, and for the further reason that the witness is not named in the 
notice. 

A. None of them ; not one. You can take the best educated natives in Nome, 
and I will bring them right here and talk about a certain subject outside of 
every-day things, like buying a piece of ivory or selling this or selling that, they 
don't know a thing about it. I will take any one of them into this office, and 
they could not answer one question. I have spoken to them about different 
things, and they would say, " What is that?" " What does that mean?" Ask a 
native the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Can he answer? 
No. He doesn't know the difference. He don't know about anything unless he 
is posted by some one. 

Q. Have you ever found one native that could intelligently discuss any 
political proposition ? 

Mr. LoMEN. Same objections. 

A. No, n — o, no ! 

Mr. O'Neill. I think that is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lomen : 

Q. Mr. Martin, what you have testified to has reference to the natives in and 
about Nome only? — A. Sure. 

Q. The natives of Nome have not been in the habit of voting, have they, to 
your knowledge? — A. I don't think so; no, not that I know of. 

Q. You don't know of any natives who have voted? — A. I do not. 

Q. You don't know whether any natives voted at Unalakleet or not ? — A. No ; 
I don't know. 

(Whereupon Mr. Martin, seeing a native passing the door, brought him in.) 

Mr. Maktin. Now, here is a native who is considered an exceptionally intelli- 
gent native. He makes his own living, fishes, and is an industrious native. 
Now, I will prove what I have just testified to. This native talks good English 
and reads and writes. 

Mr. Martin. What is the difterence between a Democrat and a Republican? 

Eskimo. I don't know. 

Mr. Martin. Do you know who the President of the United States is? 

Eskimo. I don't know. 

Mr. LoMEN. Do you know who the governor of Alaska is? 

Eskimo. I don't know ; I no savey. 

Frank Martin. 



364 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 



Contestee's Exhibit A. D. B. Chase. Notary Public. 

Duplicate register of fjeneral election, November 7, 1916, for Delegate, memhers 
of the legislature, and for other purposes, Unalakleet voting precinct, St. 
Michael recording district, second division, Territory of Alaska. 

Duplicate register. 



No. 



Names. 



Thomas A. Power 

E.G. Bradley 

T. Englestadt 

August Anderson 

Mrs. T. A. Power 

J. Schofleld 

C. Steinhauser 

Edwin Englestadt . . . 

Frank Bason 

Maurino E. Johnson.. 

Gus Murray 

Mrs. Eric Johnson 

Elmer E. Van Ness . . 

Samuel Anarauk 

Mrs. E. B. Van Ness. 

Mrs. S. Anarauk 

O. Rock 

Mrs. O. Rock 

Aaron Pineok 

Harry Luxi 

Charles Atiman 

Miles Yonongan 



Chal- 
lenged. 



Voted 
or re- 
jected. 



No. 



Names. 



Chas. E. Traeger 

Mrs. F. Bason 

George Krotik ,. 

Mrs. Eva Rock 

Mrs. E. Bradley 

Mrs. Geo. Kootak 

Etaysuk Analunruk 

Agnes Yantuk 

Mrs. Wilson Ginongun . 

Mrs. G. Luxi 

Mrs. Agnes Lahulook . . 

Simon Lugonock 

Frank Nashowrak 

Dick Atemun 

Shatter Losadik 

Mrs. E. Losadik 

Mrs. E. Lusak 

Joseph Rutchutuk 

Carrie Pernipsook 

Mrs. PauUne Dick 

Mrs. Helga Rutchutuk. 
Wilson Gonongun 



Chal- 
lenged. 



Voted 
or re- 
jected. 



Teeeitort of Alaska, 

Second Division, ss: 
We, the undersigned, certify the foregoing register of names, together with the 
data relative thereto, required by law, to be a true and correct record of all 
persons voting or applying to vote at said election and precinct ; that the polls 
were kept open for the reception of votes from 8 a. m. to 7 p. m., and that said 
register was kept and executed in duplicate. 
Given under our hand the date above written. 

Thomas A. Powee, 
E. O. Beadley, 
Maurice A. Johnson, 

Judges of Election. 
United States of America, 

District of Alaska, Second Division, ss: 
I, G. A. Adams, clerk of the district court for the district of Alaska, second 
division, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the 
original duplicate register of general election held November 7, 1916, Unalakleet 
voting precinct, St. Michael recording district, second divson, Terrtory of 
Alaska, now on file and of record in my office at Nome, in the district of Alaska, 
and the same is a true and perfect transcript of said original and of the whole 
thereof. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 25th day of July, A. D. 1917. 
[seal.] G. a. Adams, Clerk. 

By W. O. McGuiee, Deputy. 

Contestee's Exhibit B. D. B. Chace, Notary Public. 

instructions. 



1. The judges constitute election board and have supervision and charge of 
election. It is their duty to provide suitable polling place and a ballot box, 
pass upon qualifications of voters, receive and deposit ballots in the box, and 
canvass and make returns. 

2. Each judge must take oath before officiating. Oath may be taken before 
a notary or commissioner, or one of the judges may swear in the others and 
then he in turn be sworn in by one of them. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 365 

3. Either of the judges may administer oath to a challenged voter. The 
judges have equal authority, and in case of disagreement, decision of majority 
governs. 

4. Two of the judges (except in incorporated towns) act as clerks. The two 
clerks must not be of same politics. The clerks keep the duplicate registers, 
entering the names of voters as they receive official ballots. 

5. On morning of election, if a judge or judges fail to appear or qualify, the 
voters present, by majority viva voce vote, elect others. Persons thus selected 
shall take oath before serving. 

6. Judges are required to keep polls open from 8 a. m. to 7 p. m. 

7. Official ballot must be used. A person desiring to vote applies to judges 
for ballot. A ballot, with one stub removed, is given when voter retires to mark 
same. After marking, the ballot is so folded by voter as to conceal vote and 
to leave the remaining stiib so projecting that same may be readily removed by 
the judges. Voter then hands ballot to one of judges ; such judge receiving 
the ballot, if no challenge is made, after checking remaining stub with the one 
previously removed, removes the second stub and deposits same in the box ; 
the clerks make appropriate entry in column of register headed ." Voted, etc." 
A ballot placed in box is not to be removed until polls close. 

8. If challenge offered, judges furnish voter with form of affidavit, and if he 
fills out, signs, and swears to same, judges must accept the ballot. Clerks enter 
name on registers with notation of " Challenged " and " Voted " or " Refused " 
and reason of refusal. Blank space is left on last page of register in which to 
rewrite name of person whose vote is rejected, giving it the same number it 
bears in the register, together with reason of rejection. 

9. In event of no official ballots being received by the election board, voters 
may write or print their ballots, judges making a certificate, as part of 
returns, showing facts preventing use of official ballots. 

.10. A judge, a watcher, or any qualified voter has right to challenge. 

11. A voter who uiars a ballot may receive a second, and. if necessary, a 
third, but no more. The marred ballots to be taken and preserA^ed by the judges. 

12. The legislative act provides that there shall be booths or screens wherein 
voter may mark ballot. Also that if a voter is unable to mark ballot, that 
judges shall assist; and in case of so assisting, to certify on the ballot. 

13. At close of polls judges at once publicly open box and count and canvass 
the votes cast, and thereupon make out duplicate certificates of result, writing 
the number of votes cast for each candidate in words and in figures also. They 
then seal in one envelope one duplicate certificate, one duplicate register, all 
the ballots cast, and all the affidavits made, and mail such envelope at nearest 
post office, registered, if possible, with postage prepaid, to J. F. A. Strong, governor 
of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. The other duplicate certificate, duplicate register, 
with oaths of judges, pay rolls, and watchers' credentials, are forwarded by 
mail, registered and postage prepaid as above, to G. A. Adams, clerk of court, 
Nome, Alaska. 

14. Judges should be careful to insert all the dates, etc., and sign all the 
blanks, and have pay rolls signed by all the parties to whom payments are to 
be made. 

15. The law requires full citizenship as qualification to vote. A person not 
entitled to vote is not qualified to act as judge. 

16. Date of election : First Tuesday after first Monday in November, being 
November 7, 1916. 

SECTIONS OF THE LAW GOVERNING ELECTIONS. 

Sec. 394. All male citizens of the United States 21 years of age and over 
who are actual and bona fide residents of Alaska, and who have been such resi- 
dents continuously during the entire year immediately preceding the election, 
and who have been such residents continuously for 30 days next preceding 
the election in the precinct in which they vote, shall be qualified to vote for the 
election of a Delegate from Alaska. (See also sec. 1.) 

Sec. 397. That the judges of election of each voting precinct shall constitute 
the election board for said precinct, and shall supervise and have charge of the 
election therein. They shall secure and provide a place for holding the election 
and a suitable ballot box. They shall pass upon the qualifications of the voter, 
and, if he be found qualified, receive and deposit his ballot in the ballot box, 
and shall canvass and make a return of the votes cast, as hereinafter provided. 



366 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

That the members of said election board in each precinct, before entering 
upon tlie duties of tlieir office, shall each severally take an oath, which shall 
be reduced to writing, before an officer qualified to administer oaths, to hon- 
estly, faithfully, and promptly perform the duties of their positions ; and if no 
officer qualified to administer oaths be present or available, then any one of 
said duly appointed or selected judges of election may administer the necessary 
oath to said other two judges, and he shall afterwards in turn be sworn by 
one of them. 

That each of said judges shall have authority to administer any oath to the 
voter necessary or proper under this act ; and said judges shall have equal 
authority ; and in case of any question or disagreement over any matter during 
the course of said election, the decision of the majority of such judges shall 
govern. 

That two of the three judges of election in each voting precinct, outside of 
incorporated towns to be selected by a majority of said judges, shall also per- 
form the duties of clerks of election for that precinct ; the two judges perform- 
ing the duties of clerks shall be of different political parties ; it shall be the 
duty of the clerks at each voting precinct to make a. full written record of 
such election as held in that precinct, and each of them shall keep a correct 
duplicate register and enter therein the names of the voters and the fact that 
they have voted or have offered to vote and were refused, and a brief statement 
of the reason for said refusal. 

Sec. 398. That each of the candidates for the office of Delegate herein pro- 
vided for, at any election held hereunder, shall be entitled to one watcher at each 
voting precinct, who shall be permitted to be present within the place of voting 
at such precinct and in some place therein where he may at all times be in 
full view of every act done. Such watcher shall have the right to be so 
present at all times from the opening of the polls until the ballots are finally 
counted and the result certified by the election board. Each watcher shall be 
required to present to the election board proper credentials, signed by the can- 
didate he represents, showing him to be the duly authorized watcher for such 
person. 

Sec. 399. That in case any of the judges of election selected as herein pro- 
vided for any precinct shall fail to appear and qualify at the time and 
place designated for the election for which they shall be appointed, then 
in that event the qualified voters present may, by a majority viva voce vote, 
select a suitable person or persons to fill the vacancy or vacancies in said elec- 
tion board, and the person or persons so selected shall qualify and serve on 
said election board, with the same powers and in the same manner as if ap- 
pointed as hereinbefore provided. 

Sec. 400. That the election boards herein provided for shall keep the several 
polling places open for the reception of votes from S o'clock a. m. until 7 o'clock 
p. m. on the day of election. The voting at said election shall be by printed 
or written ballot. 

Such ballot shall be folded by the voter so as not to disclose the vote, and 
by him handed to any one of the judges of election, who shall immediately, 
in the presence of the voter and of all the members of the election board, de- 
posit the same, folded as aforesaid, in the ballot box, where the same shall 
remain \intouched until the polls are closed. At the time the ballot is so 
deposited the clerks of election shall each of them enter in his duplicate register 
the name of the voter and the fact that he has voted. 

Section 3, chapter 25, Session Laws, 1915 (in parts) : 

The ballots shall be headed " Official ballot " of the judicial division in which 
it is issued, and at the top thereof, above a perforated line, shall be duplicate 
stubs bearing consecutive numbers, one of said stubs to be retained by the 
election judges upon presenting the ballot to the voter, the other stub to be 
torn from the ballot by the election judges and compared and retained upon 
tlie return of the voter from the voliing booth ; and each official ballot shall 
contain, under the title of each office, one blank space for as many candidates 
as may be voted for to fill such office, below the printed names of candidates 
upon which may be written names of candidates or persons whose names are 
not printed upon the official ballot. 

Sec. 401. That any person offering to vote may be challenged by any election 
officer or any other person entitled to vote at the same polling place, or by any 
duly appointed watcher ; and when so challenged, before being allowed to vote, 
he shall made and subscribe to the following oath: " You do solemnly swear (or 
affirm, as the case may be) that you are 21 years of age and a citizen of the 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE, 367 

United States ; that you are an actual and bona fide resident of Alaslia, and 
have been sucli resident during tlie entire year immediately preceding this 
election, and have been a resident in this voting precinct for 30 days next pre- 
ceding this election, and that you have not voted at this election," and, further, 
naming the place from which the voter came immediately prior to living in 
the precinct in which he offers to vote, and giving the length of time of his 
residence in the former place. And when he has made such an affidavit he shall 
be allowed to vote ; but if any person so challenged shall refuse or fail to 
take such oath and sign such affidavit, then his vote shall be rejected ; and 
any person swearing falsely to any such affidavit shall be guilty of perjury, 
and shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer punishment as is prescribed by law 
for persons guilty of perjury. 

Sec. 402. That the election board at each polling place, as soon as the polls 
are closed, shall immediately publicly proceed to open the ballot box and 
count and canvass the votes cast ; and they shall thereupon, under their hands 
and seals, make out in duplicate a certificate of the result of said election, 
specifying the number of votes, in words and figures, cast for each candidate; 
and they shall then immediately carefully and securely seal up in one envelope 
one of said duplicate certificates and one of the registers of voters, all the 
ballots cast, and all affidavits made, and mail such envelope, with said papers 
inclosed, at the nearest post office, by registered mail, if possible, duly addressed 
to the governor of Alaska, at his place of residence, with the postage prepaid 
thereon. 

The other duplicate certificate and register of voters, with the oaths of the 
judges of election, the judges of election shall at once seal up in an envelope 
addressed to the clerk of the district court for the division in which the 
precinct is situate, at his place of residence, with the postage thereon prepaid, 
and deposit the same in the nearest post office, by registered mail, if possible. 
And the said clerk shall, as soon as he receives the said duplicate certificate, at 
once make out and mail to the governor of Alaska a certified copy of such 
certificate. 

The clerks of the district courts for the various divisions of Alaska and the 
governor of Alaska shall each retain and carefully preserve all such documents 
received by them until the end of the term for which the Delegate chosen has 
been elected. 

Sec. 404. Each newspaper in Alaska authorized to publish the notice of 
election provided for herein, and having published the same according to law, 
shall be entitled to receive therefor not more than .$10 for the entire publications 
of any one election ; that each commissioner in the Territory of Alaska is 
authorized to contract for the proper posting of all election notices, as provided 
herein, in each voting precinct created in his said election district, and that not 
more than the sum of $10 shall be allowed at each election for the posting of 
said notices in any one voting precinct in Alaska ; that not more than $10 at 
each election shall be allowed for the rental of a proper polling place in each 
voting precinct in Alaska ; that each of the judges of election who shall qualify 
and serve as such in any precinct on said election day, and each of the clerks of 
election in an incorporated town, shall be entitled to compensation of $5 for all 
services performed. 

Sec 412. That the first election for members of the Legislature of Alaska 
shall be held on the Tuesdaj^ next after the first Monday in November, 1912, 
and all subsequent elections for the election of such members shall be held 
on the Tuesday next after the first' Monday in November biennially thereafter ; 
that the qualifications of electors, the regulations governing the creation of 
voting precincts, the appointment and qualifications of election officers, the 
supervision of elections, the giving of notices thereof, the forms of ballots, the 
register of votes and challenging of voters, and the returns and the canvass 
of the returns of the result of all such elections for members of the legisla- 
ture shall be the same as those prescribed in the act of Congress entitled "An 
act providing for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives 
from the Territory of Alaska," approved May 7, 1906, and all the provisions of 
said act which are applicable are extended to said elections for members of the 
legislature and shall govern the same, and the canvassing board created by said 
act shall canvass tbe returns of such elections and issue certificates of plection to 
each member elected to the said legishiture ; and all the penal provisions con- 
tained in section 15 of the said act shall apply to elections for members of the 
legislature as fully as they uo^^' apply to elections for Delegate from Alaska to 
the House of Representatives. 



368 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

Sec. 416. (The last proviso of the section.) That notliing herein contained 
shall be held to abridge the right of the legislature to modify the qualifications 
of electors by extending the elective franchise to Avomen. 

An act of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska entitled "An act to extend the 
elective franchise to women in the Territory of Alaska." 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska: 
Section 1. That in all elections which are now or may hereafter be authorized 
by law in the Territory of Alaska or any subdivision or municipality thereof, 
the elective franchise is hereby extended to such women as have the qualifica- 
tions of citizenship required of male electors. 

1915 SESSION LAWS OF ALASKA, CHAPTEE 25. 

Sec. 13. That the clerk of the district court shall forward to each United 
States commissioner in the division and to every election board or authorized 
official in incorporated towns, at least 100 ballots for each 50 voters in the 
recording districts and incorporated towns. 

Sec. 14. That the clerk of the district court shall have printed upon tinted 
paper sample ballots upon Avhich shall be printed in large type the words : 
" Sample ballot," 25 of which shall be sent to each voting precinct in the divi- 
sion and shall be posted or distributed in conspicuous places at any time on or 
l)efore the date of election by the judges of election. 

Sec. 16. That every polling place in the Territory shall be provided with 
booths or screens wherein the voter shall mark his or her ballot: Provided, 
That not less than one l)ooth shall be furnished for each 100 votes or fractional 
part threof cast at the previous election. 

Sec. 17. That when a voter enters the polling place he shall be given an 
official ballot by one of the election judges, with which he shall retire to the 
booth or screen and there mark the same for the candidates of his choice. 

Sec. is. That Avhen any voter mars a ballot so that the legibility is destroyed 
he may receive a second ballot from the judges of the election, and if necessary 
a third ballot, but no more than three will be allowed, and the marred ballots 
must be preserved by the judges of the election and placed with the unused 
ballots. 

Sec. 19. That any voter who is blind or otherwise incapable of marking his or 
her ballot may demand that the judges of election assist him or her, and the 
judges of the election shall do so. 

Sec. 21. That in any precinct wliere the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots ,which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns. 

Contestee's Exhibit C. 

CHAPTER 24. 

AN ACT To define and establish the political status of certain native Indians within the 

Territory of Alaska. 

Be it enacted by the Leyislaturc of flic Tcrntoru of Alaska: 

Section 1. Every native Indian lioru within the limits of the Territory of 
Alaska, and who has severed all tribal relationship and adopted the habits of a 
civilized life in accordance with section 6. chapter 119, twenty-fourth Statutes 
at Large, 390, may, after the passage and approval of this act, have the fact of 
his citizenship definitely established by complying with the terms hereafter set 
forth. 

Sec. 2. Every native Indian of the Territory of Alaska who shall desire a 
certificate of his citizenship shall first make application to a United States Gov- 
ernment, Territorial, or municipal school, and shall be subjected to an examina- 
tion by a majority of the teachers of such school as to his or her qualifications 
and claims for citizenship. Such examination shall broadly cover the general 
qualifications of the applicant as to an intelligent exercise of tlie obligations 
of suffrage, a total abandonment of any tribal customs or relationship, and 
the facts regarding the applicant's adoption of the habits of a civilized life. 

Sec. 3. Any native Indian of the Territory of Alaska who shall obtain a cer- 
tificate in accordance with section 2 of this act, whch certificate shall set forth 



WI0KE3ESHAM VS. SULZEE. 369 

that a proper examination has been duly held aijd the applicant found to have 
abandoned all tribal ciistoms and relationship, to have adopted the ways and 
habits of a civilized life, and to be properly qualified to intelligently exercise 
the obligations of an elector in the Terrifcoi'y of Alaska, shall thereupon obtain 
an indorsement upon said certificate by at least five white citizens of the United 
States who have been permament residents of Alaska for at least one year, 
who were not members of the examining board as provided in section 2, to the 
effect that such citizens have been personally acquainted with the life andi 
habits of such Indian for a period of at least one year, and that in their best 
judgment such Indian has abandoned all tribal customs and relationship, has 
adopted the ways and habits of a civilized life, and is duly qualified to exer- 
cise the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship. 

Sec. 4. Upon securing such certificate as provided by sections 2 and 3 of fills' 
act, properly signed in ink. the applicant shall forward the same, together with 
an oath duly acknowledged to the effect that such applicant forever renounces 
all tribal customs and relationships, to the United States district court for the 
division in which the applicant resides praying for the granting of a certificate 
of citizenship. 

Sec. 5. Upon receiving such application the judge of the district court shall 
set a day of hearing on such application, which shall not be less than 60 days 
from the date of receipt of such application, whereupon the clerk of the district 
court shall post a notice in the office containing the name of the applicant and 
the facts set forth in his application, and the date set for the hearing upon the 
application, and shall immediately forward a copy of such notice to the appli- 
cant, whereupon the applicant shall post such notice or a copy thereof in a con- 
spicuous place at the post office nearest to his or her residence. 

Sec. 6. Upon approval of such application by the judge of the United States 
district court for the division in which the applicant resides the said judge 
shall issue a certificate certifying that due proof has been made to him that the 
said applicant is " an Indian born within the Territorial limits of the United 
States, and that he has voluntarily taken up within said limits his residence 
separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein and has adopted the 
habits of civilized life." Said certificate, when presented in court or otherwise, 
shall be taken and considered as prima facie evidence of the truth of the state- 
ments therein contained. 

Approved April 27. 19] 5. 

Contestee's Exhibit D. 

chapter 25. 

AN ACT To provide official ballots for elections In the Territory of Alaska. 

Be it enacted hy the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska: 

Section 1. That after the passage of this act for all elections in the Territory 
of Alaska provided for in an act T)f Congress entitled "An act to create a Legis- 
lative Assembly in the Territory of Alaska, to confer legislative powers thereon, 
and for other purposes," approved August 24, 1912, the clerk of the district court 
of each judicial division of the Territory shall prepare ballots for use in their 
respective divisions. 

Sec. 2. That every ballot printed under the provisions of this act shall be 
printed upon white paper of sufficient width and length to afford space for the 
names of all the candidates to be voted for and blank spaces for the insertion 
of names of candidates not printed upon the ballots. The names of all candi- 
dates nominated in accordance with the pi-ovisions of this act shall be printed 
uioon the ballots. 

Sec. 3. The ballots shall be headed " Official ballot " of the judicial division in 
which it is issued. At the top thereof, above a perforated line, shall be dupli- 
cate stubs bearing consecutive numbers, one of said stubs to be retained by the 
election judges upon presenting the ballot to the voter, the other stub to be 
torn from the ballot by the election judges and compared and retained upon the 
return of the voter from the vothig booth, and each official ballot shall contain 
under the title of each office one blank space for as many candidates as may be 
voted for to fill such office, below the printed names of candidates upon \vhich 
maj be written names of candidates or persons whose names are not printed 
upon the official ballot. The clerk of the court shall, in preparing said ballot, 
provide space in conformity with this act for the names of candidates for any 
additional offices which may hereafter be created for the Territory. 
13289—17—24 



370 WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

No. ^ No. • 



(Perforated line.) 

OFFICIAL BALLOT. 

judicial division. 



Mark X in the square at tlie left of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote. If names of 
candidates for whom you desire to vote do not appear on the hallot, insert with pencil in blank space. 

For Delegate to Congress (vote for one). 





Brown, Richard. 




Doe, John. 










For Territorial Senator (vote for ). 








For Territorial Representatives (vote for 4). 



















Provided, That in case there are two Territorial senators to be elected, tlie 
terms for which the candidates are to be elected shall be printed on the ballot 
in the following manner : 

John Doe (long term). 
Richard Roe (short term). 

Sec. 4. At the top of the ballot shall appear the following instructions to the 
voters : " Mark X in the square at the left of the name of the candidate for 
whom you desire to vote. If names of candidates for whom you desire to vote 
do not appear on the ballot, insert with pencil in blank spaces." 

Sec. 5. That the names of the candidates. for the several offices shall be 
printed upon the ballots in alphabetical order of the first letters of their family 
names. 

Sec. 6. That black lines shall be printed upon the ballots to separate the 
spaces wherein are printed the names of candidates, and at the left-hand end 
of each space provided for the names of candidates, shall be printed in black 
lines a square wherein the voter shall mark X to designate the candidate for 
whom he desires to vote. 

Sec. 7. That the first list of names printed upon the ballots in alphabetical 
order, as provided for in section 6 of this act, shall be the names of candidates 
for the office of Delegate to Congress, and at the top of the list shall be printed 
the words : " For Delegate to Congress " and " Vote for one." 

Sec 8 That the second list of names printed upon the ballots in alphabetical 
order as provided for in section 6 of this act, shall be the names of candidates 
for the office of Territorial senator, and at the top of the list shall be printed 
the words : " For Territorial senator " and " Vote for ." 

Sec 9 That the third list of names printed upon the ballots in alphabetical 
order as provided for in section 6 of this act, shall be the names of candidates 
for the office of representative to the Territorial Legislature, and at the top of 
the list shall be printed the words : " For representative to the legislature 

^^Sec 10 That on" the back and outside of every ballot shall be printed the 
words: " Official ballot," followed by the designation of the judicial division for 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 371 

f 
which the ballot is prepared, the date of the election, the official indorsement 
of the clerk of the court, and blank certificates in the following form : " We 
certify that the within ballot was marked by us for an elector incapable under 
the law of marking his own ballot, and as directed by him," and " signed 
judges of election." 

Sec. 11. That the name of any candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress 
shall be placed upon the official ballot upon the filing of nomination papers 
bearing the signature of not less than 250 qualified voters of the Territory, 
not less than 75 days before the date of the election with the clerk of the 
district court of the judicial division in which the candidate resides, and 
such clerk shall immediately forward certified copies of the nomination papers 
to the clerks of the court of the other judicial divisions, and such certified 
copies shall be accepted for filing and have the same force and effect as the 
original nomination papers. 

Sec. 12. That the name of any candidate for the office of Territorial senator, 
or for the office of representative to the Territorial Legislature, shall be placed 
on the official ballot upon the filing of nomination papers bearing the signatures 
of not less than 100 qualified voters of the judicial division in which the candi- 
date resides, not less than 75 days before the election, with the clerk of the 
district court of the judicial division in which such candidate resides. 

Sec. 13. That the clerk of the district court shall forward to each United 
States connnissioner in the division and to every election board or authorized 
official in incorporated towns, at least 100 ballots for each 50 voters in the re- 
cording districts and incorporated towns. 

Sec. 14. That the clerk of the district court shall have printed upon tinted 
paper sample ballots upon which shall be printed in large type, the words, 
" Sample ballot," 25 of which shall be sent to each voting precinct in the 
division and shall be posted or distributed in conspicuous places at any time 
on or before the date of election, by the judges of election. 

Sec. 15. That the United States commissioner of each recording district shall 
deliver to the election judges or the authorized officials in incorporated towns 
the required number of ballots for each voting precinct. 

Sec. 16. That every polling place in the Territory shall be provided with 
booths or screens wherein the voter .shall mark his or her ballot : Provided, 
That not less than one booth shall be furnished for each 100 votes or fractional 
part thereof, cast at the previous election. 

Sec. 17. That when a voter enters the polling place he shall be given an 
official ballot by one of the election judges with Avhich he shall retire to the 
booth or screen and there mark the same for the candidates of his choice. 

Sec. 18. That when any voter mars a ballot so that the legibility is destroyed, 
he may receive a second ballot from the judges of the election, and if necessary, 
a third ballot, but no more than three will be allowed, and the marred ballots 
must be preserved by the judges of the election and placed with the used ballots. 

Sec. 19. That any voter who is blind or otherwise incapable of marking his or 
her ballot, may demand that the judges of election assist him or her, and the 
judges of the election shall do so. 

Sec. 20. That the act of Congress entitled "An act providing for the election 
of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from the Territory of Alaska," 
approved May 7, 1906. or any acts amendatory thereof shall continue to apply 
to all elections except in so far as it is modified or amended by this act. 

Sec. 21. That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and 
no official ballots have been received the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the facts 
which prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns. 

Sec. 22. The clerk of the court shall provide each polling place with a book 
to be known as the registration book, on the third page of which shall be 
printed the qualifications of the voter, as follows: "Any person of the age of 
21 years or more who is a citizen of the United States, who has lived in the 
Territory of Alaska one year and in the judicial division in which he or she 
offers to cast his or her vote 30 days immediately preceding such election, shall 
be entitled to vote at all elections held therein: Provided, That all idiots, 
insane persons, and persons who have been convicted on an infamous crime 
are excluded from sucl: right and privilege : And jirovided further. That no per- 
son shall be deemed to have lost his residence by reason of his absence while 
in the civil or military service of the Territory or the United States, nor while 
a student at any institution of learning, nor while kept a public charge at any 



372 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

poorhouse or any other asylum, nor while confined in any public prison, nor 
while engaged in navigation of the waters of this Territory of the United 
States, or the high seas; absence from the Territory of said judicial division 
or city or town wherein election is held, on business, shall not affect the ques- 
tion of residence, provided he or she has not claimed such right else'where. 
One of the said judges shall keep said registration book, and before any voter 
shall receive his or her official ballot, he or she shall sign his or her name in 
said book, which signature shall lie a statement of said voter to the effect that 
he or she is qualified to vote under this act. 

Sec. 23. Any person who can qualify as a legal voter in the division in which 
he or she attempts or offers to vote, may qualify and vote in any election pre- 
cinct in such division by subscribing to the qualifications required for registra- 
tion in this section. Any person who makes a false statement of his or her 
qualifications to vote, shall be punished, upon conviction by a fine of not less 
than $25 nor more than $200, or by imprisonment in the Federal jail for not less 
tlian 10 days nor more than 60 days, or by both fine and imprisonment in the 
discretion of the court. 

Sec. 24. Penalty for violation of election laws : Any person or officer who has 
assumed the duties of any officer under the provisions of this act, who shall 
willfully and corruptly fail, neglect, or refuse to perform any duty or do 
anything required of him by this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 
nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the Federal jail for a period of 
not less than one month, nor more than one year, or by both such fine and im- 
prisonment : Provided, hoicever-, That the provisions of this section shall not 
apply to any case Avhere special punishment is provided by this act. 

Sec. 25. Intimidation of voters: No person shall in any way directly or in- 
directly, by menace or other corrupt means or device (directly or indirectly) 
attempt to influence any person in giving or i-efusing to give his vote in any 
such election, or to deter or dissuade any person from giving his vote therein, 
or to disturb, hinder, persuade, threaten, or intimidate any person from giving 
his vote therein, nor shall any person at any such election, knowingly, and 
Vi'illfully make any false assertion or propagate any false report concerning any 
person who shall be a candidate thereat, which shall have a tendency to pre- 
vent his election, or with a view thereto, and if any person shall be guilty of 
any act forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this section, he shall be deemed 
and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be 
punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court 
before (whom) such conviction shall be had: Provided, That in no case shall 
such fine exceed the sum of $250 or sluch imprisonment the term of six months. 

Sec. 26. Fraudulent voting: If any elector shall vote, or attempt to vote 
more than once at any election, or shall knowingly hand in two or more tickets 
together, or having voted in one division, precinct, town, or ward, shall after- 
wards on the same day. vote, or attempt to vote in another division, precinct, 
town, or ward, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be 
prohibited from voting at any election or holding any public office for two 
years thereafter. 

Sec. 27. Disqualified persons voting: If any person, knowing that he does 
not possess the legal qualifications of a voter, at any election authorized by law 
to be held in this Territory for any office whatever, shall vote at such election, 
such person shall be guilty of a felony. 

Sec 28. Collusion of election officers : If any inspector or judge of any such 
election shall knowingly permit any elector to cast a second vote at any such 
election, or shall knowingly permit any person not a qualified elector to vote 
at any such election, such inspector or judge of election shall be guilty of a 
felony and be incapable ^f holding any public office in this Territory for five 
years thereafter. 

Sec. 29. Officers attempting to influence voter : If any inspector, judge, or 
clerk of an election shall attempt to induce, by persuasion, menace, or reward, 
or promise thereof, any elector to vote for any person, such inspector, judge, or 
clerk shall be guilty of a felony. 

Sec 30. Tampering with ballot by officer: If any judge, inspector, clerk, or 
any other officer of an election shall open or mai*k, by folding or otherwise, any 
ticket presented by such elector, at such election, or attempt to find out the 
names thereon, or suffer the same to be done by any otlier person, before such 
ticket Is deposited in the ballot box, such judge, inspector, or clerk shall be 
guilty of a felony. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 373 

Sec. 31. Intimidating or bribing voter : If any person shall use menace, 
force, threat, or corrupt means at or previous to any election held pursuant to 
the laws of the Territory toward any elector, to hinder or deter such elector 
from voting at said election, or shall, directly or indirectly, offer any bribe or 
reward of any kind to induce any elector for or against any person, proposition., 
or shall authorize any person so to do, such person shall be guilty of a felony. 

Sec. 32. Fraudulent attempt to influence voter : If any person shall fraudu- 
lently cause, or attempt to cause, any elector, at any election held pursuant to 
law in this Territory, to vote for a person different from the one he intended 
to vote for, such person so offending shall be fined not more than $100 nor less 
than $10. 

Sec. 33. Inducing certain Indians to vote : If any person shall induce, or at- 
tempt to induce, any Indian or descendant of the aboriginal races, or any other 
person, to vote or offer his vote at any such election, when he is not legally 
entitled so to do, such person so offending, upon conviction thereof, shall be 
*fined in the sum not exceeding $500, to which may be added imprisonment in 
the Federal jail not to exceed three months : Provided, That this section shall 
not be so construed as to include Indians or descendants of the aboriginal 
races inhabiting Alaska who are or who shall have become citizens and entitled 
to vote under the laws of the United States and the Territory of Alaska. 

Sec. 34. Nonfeasance or malfeasance of election officers : Every person 
charged with the performance of any duty under the provisions of any law of 
this Territory relating to elections, or to any primary or any other primary elec- 
tion held pursuant to law, who willfully neglects such duty, or who, in the 
performance of such duty, or in his official capacity, knowingly violates any 
of the provisions of law relating to such duty, shall be guilty of a felony and 
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a peni- 
tentiary for a period of not to exceed two years, or both such fine and im- 
prisonment. 

Sec. 35. Sale of liquor on election day : Any person who shall barter, sell, 
give away, or in any manner dispose of any intoxicating liquors, on the day 
of any general or special election of Territorial, divisional, or municipal officers 
within the Territory, division, or municipal corporation in which said election 
is held, and before the polls have closed, shall, on conviction thereof, be 
punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment 
in the Federal jail not less than 10 nor more than 30 days, or both, in the dis- 
cretion of the court. 

Sec. 36. Bribery or influencing voter : If any candidate for office, in any elec- 
tion as hereafter mentioned under the laws of this Territory, or any other 
person, shall directly or indirectly offer, promise, procure, confer, or give any 
money, property, thing of action, victuals, drink, preferment, or other con- 
sideration or valuable thing by way of fee, reward, gift or gratuity, for giving 
or refusing to give any vote in any election of any public officer, Territory, 
division or municipal whatever, or any person who shall carry voters to any 
polling place by wagon, steamboat, or otherwise, for the purpose of influencing 
their votes, such person shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misde- 
meanor, and on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or 
both, at the discretion of the court, said fine not to exceed $1,000, nor such 
imprisonment to exceed six months in a Federal jail : Provided further, Such 
person shall, on such conviction, and as part of the judgment of the court, be 
deprived of the right of suffrage, and such candidate for office shall be dis- 
qualified to hold any office to which he was elected at such election; And 
provided further. If any person shall dii'ectly or indirectly ask for, accept, 
receive or take any such bribe, or the promise thereof, for giving or refusing 
to give his vote in any such election, he shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
meanor and punished with the like penalties as hereinbefore prescribed. 

Sec. 87. Unlawful printing or distributing of official ballots : Any printer, 
busiiiess manager, or publisher employed by any officer authorized by the laws 
of this territory to procure the printing of any official ballot, or any person 
engaged in printing the same who shall appropriate to himself or give or 
deliver or knowingly permit to be taken any of said ballots by any person 
other than such officer so authorized by law to receive the same, or who shall 
willfully print or cause to be printed any official ballot in any other form than 
that prescribed by law or as directed by the officer so authorized to procure 
the said printing, or with any other names thereon or with the names spelled 
otherwise than as directed by such officer, or the names or printing thereon 
arranged in any other way than that authorized and directed by law, shall be 
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to 



374 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500, or imprisonment in the 
Federal jail for a term not exceeding one year nor less than six months, or 
both at the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 38. Unlawful possession or counterfeiting of official ballots : Any person 
other than the officer charged by law with the care of ballots, or a person 
intrusted by any such officer with the care of the same for the purpose required 
by law, who shall have in his possession outside of the voting room any offi- 
cial ballot, or any person who shall make or have in his possession any counter- 
feit of any official ballot, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding $1,000 nor less than 
$500, or to undergo imprisonment in the Federal jail for a term not less than 
six months or more than one year, or both at the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 39.' Penalty where no other is provided : In the event that any person 
shall be convicted of the violation of any one or more of the provisions of the 
election laws and no other penalty therefor shall be named herein he shall pay a' 
fine of not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the Feileral jail for not more 
than one year, or by both sucli fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the 
court. 

Sec. 40. Allowance of time for employees to vote : Any person entitled to 
vote at a general or special election held within this Territory as herein pro- 
vided shall, on the day of such election, be entitled to absent himself from any 
service or employment in which he is then engaged or employed for a period of 
at least two liours while the polls of such election are open. If such elector 
shall notify his employer before the day of such election of such intended 
absence, and if thereupon two consecutive hours for such absence shall be 
designated by the employer and said absence shall be during such designated 
hours, or if the employer upon the day of such notice makes no designation,, 
and such absence shall be during any two consecutive hours while such polls 
are open, no deduction shall he made from the usual salary or wages of such 
voter, and no other penalty shall be imposed by reason of such employer or 
person having the direction of or being in charge of persons employed by another 
shall violate the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 
and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment 
in the Federal jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and 
imprisonment. 

Sec. 41. All acts or parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed 
in so far as they affect this act. 

Approved, April 27, 1915. 

United States or America, 

Territory of Alaska, second dwision, ss: 

I, D. B. Chace, a notary public in and for the Territory of Alaska, do hereby 
certify that the witnesses — Herbert Spencer, Russell Bowen. G. A. Adams, 
Robert .lames, W. R. Hayes, E. E. Adams, Louis Ericson, Fred Larsen. and 
Frank IMartin — in the foregoing depositions were by me duly sworn to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; that said depositions were 
then taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place mentioned in the 
annexed notice, to wit, at the office of Hugh O'Neill, in Nome, Alaska, on the 
25th day of July, 1917, between the hours of 2 o'clock p. m. and 6 o'clock p. m. 
of said day ; that said depositions were thereafter by me reduced to writing, 
and when completed were carefully read over by said witnesses and by them 
subscribed in my presence ; tliat pages 1 to 68. inclusive, was all the testimony 
given at said time; that Exhibits A, B, C, and D attached hereto are the 
exhibits introduced at the taking of said testimony. 

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 31st day of .Tuly, 1917, at Nome. 
Alaska. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary public for the territory of Alaska, 

Residing at Nome, Alaska. 

SUBPCENAS. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 

of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting. 
To Herbert Spencer. 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Himter Way, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 375 

there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before tlie House of 
Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom Avitliout leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained 
thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

(My commission expires May 12, 1921.) 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, second division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says : 
I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 
21 years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 18th day of July, 1917, I 
personally served the within subpoena upon Herbert Spencer, by then and there 
delivering a copy of the within subpoena and at the same time exhibiting the 
original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ISth day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary PtMic for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

(My commission expires May 12, 1921.) 

Due service and receipt of a copy of the within subpoena is hereby admitted 
at Nome, Alaska, this ISth day of July, 1917. 

H. Spenceb. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 

of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting. 
To Russell W. Bowen : 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter Way, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 
there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of 
Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained 
thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

(My commission expires May 12, 1921.) 

United States or Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, second division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States, over and above the age of 21 
years; that I am a resident of Nome, Alaska: that on the 19th day of July, 
1917, I personally served the within subpoena upon Rusel Bowen by then and 
there delivering a copy of the within subpoena and at the same time exhil)iting 
the original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

Due service and receipt of a copy of the within subpoena is hereby admitted 
at Nome, Alaska, this 19th day of July, 1917. 

Russell W. Bowen. 



376 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 
of tlie United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaslva, greeting: 

To G. A. Adams: 

You are hereby required tliat all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, at 
the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter Way, in Nome, Alaska, 
on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2. o'clock p. m. of said day, then and there 
♦to testify in the above-entitled cause, now pending before the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the part of 
the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notm'y Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, second division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States, over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 19th day of July, 1917, I per- 
sonally served the within subpoena upon G. A. Adams, by then and there deliver- 
ing a copy of the within subpoena, and at the same time exhibiting the original 
thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

Due service and receipt of a copy of the within subpoena is hereby admitted 
at Nome, Alaska, this 19th day of July, 1917. 

G. A. Adams. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 
of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting : 

To RoBT. James : 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter Way, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 2.5th day of July, 1917, at -2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 
there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of 
Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required, you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

(My commission expires May 12, 1921.) 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, second division, ss: 
HUGH O'NEILL, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says : 
I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 
21 years ; that I am a resident of Nome, Alaska ; that on the 12th day of July, 
1917, I personally served the within subpoena upon William Priest by then and 



WIOKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 377 

there delivering a copy of the within subpoena, and at the same time exhibiting 
the original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of July, 1917. 
[SEAi..] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
(My commission expii'es May 12, 1921.) 

Due service of the within subpoena is hereby admitted at Nome, Alaska, this 
12th day of July, 1917. 

Robert James. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 

of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting : 
To W. M. Hayes: 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter Way, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 25tli day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 
there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of 
Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required, you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Puhlic for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

(My commission expires May 12, 1921.) 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, second division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I am a resident of Nome, Alaska ; that on the 13th day of July, 1917, 
I personally served the within subpoena upon W. R. Hayes by then and there 
delivering a copy of the within subpoena and at the same time exhibiting the 
original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of July, 1917. 
[SE^L.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

Due service of the within subpoena is hereby admitted at Nome, Alaska, this 
13th day of July, 1917. 

W. R. Hays. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 
of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting : 

To E. E. Adams : 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being 
set aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for 
Alaska, at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Huiiter Way, in 
Nome, Alaska, on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, 
then and there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the 
House of Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first ses- 
sion, on the part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without 
leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained 
thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seft 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public far the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 



378 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

United States oe Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, second cUvision, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 19th day of July, 1917, 
I personally served the within subpoena upon E. E. Adan^s by then and there 
delivering a copy of the within subpoena and at the same time exhibiting the 
original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary PubJic for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

Due service and receipt of a copy of the within subpoena is hereby admitted 
at Nome, Alaska, this 19th day of July, 1917. 

E. E. Adams. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives 

of the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting : 
To Louis Eeickson : 

You are hereby required that, all and singular business and excuses being 
set aside, you appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter AVay, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 
there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of 
Representatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 
• And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained 
thereby. 

In witness Avhereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary PuMie for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Second, Division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says : • 

I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 19th day of July, 1917, I 
personally served the within subpoena upon Louis Erickson by then and there 
delivering a copy of the within subpoena and at the same time exhibiting the 
. original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of July, 1917. 

[SEAL.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Fuhlic for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives of 

the United States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting : 
To Feed Lab son : 

You are hereby required that, all and singular business and excuses being 
set aside, vou appear and attend before D. B. Chace, a notary public for Alaska, 
at the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter Way, in Nome, 
Alaska, on the 25th day of July, 1917. at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and 
there to testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of 
itepresentatives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the 
part of the contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will lie deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay the party aggrieved the damage sustained thereby. 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 379 

In witness wliei'eof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome. Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 
[SEAL.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Second Division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 13th day of July, 1917, I 
personally served the within subpoena upon Fred Larson by then and there 
delivering a copy cf the within subpoena to him and at the same time exhibiting 
the original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 
My commission expires Maj^ 12, 1921. 

Due service of the within subpoena is hereby admitted at Nome, Alaska, this 
13th day of July, 1917. 

Feederik Laesen. 

The President of the United States of America, the House of Representatives of 
the United .States, and D. B. Chace, notary public for Alaska, greeting: 

To Feank Maetin : 

You are hereby required that all and singular business and excuses being set 
aside you appear and attend before D. B. Chase, a notary public for Alaska, at 
the office of Hugh O'Neill, on Front Street, near Hunter AVay, in Nome, Alaska, 
on the 25th day of July, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, then and there to 
testify in the above-entitled cause now pending before the House of Representa- 
tives of the United States, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, on the part of the 
contestee, and you are not to depart therefrom without leave. 

And for a failure to attend as above required you will be deemed guilty of 
contempt and liable to pay to the party aggrieved the damage sustained thereby. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 
of my office to be affixed at Nome, Alaska, this 11th day of July, 1917. 

[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome. 

My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

United States of Ameeica, 

Territory of Alaska, Second Division, ss: 
Hugh O'Neill, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am a white male citizen of the United States over and above the age of 21 
years ; that I reside at Nome, Alaska ; that on the 11th day of July, 1917, I 
personally served the within subpoena upon Frank Martin by then and there 
delivering a copy of the within subpoena to him and at the same time exhibiting 
the original thereof to him. 

Hugh O'Neill. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of July, 1917. 
[seal.] D. B. Chace, 

Notary Public for the Territory of Alaska, residing at Nome, 
My commission expires May 12, 1921. 

Due service of the within subpoena is hereby admitted at Nome, Alaska, this 
11th day of July, 1917. 

Feank Maetin. 
deposition of contestee. 
Disteict of Columbia, 

City of Washington, ss: 
Pursuant to a notification signed by counsel for contestee, dated at Seattle, 
Wash.. July 17, 1917. directed to the Hon. James Wickersham, contestant, 
namely, that the testimony of Hon. Charles A. Sulzer, contestee in the above- 



380 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 

entitled cause, would be taken before Sebe Newman, notary public in and for 
the District of Columbia, in the office of James T. Lloyd, Room 708, Woodward 
Building, Washington, D. 0., beginning at 10 o'clock a. m. of Thursday, July 26, 
1917, the following appeared in the said office of James T. Lloyd, Room 708, 
Woodward Building, Washington, D. C, at the time aforementioned, namely, 10 
o'clock a. m. of Thursday, July 26. 1917, for the purpose of taking the deposition 
of the said Hon. Charles A. Sulzer : 

Appearances: Hon. Charles A. Sulzer. contestee; James T. Lloyd, counsel for 
contestee ; Henry W. Elliott, representing contestant ; Sebe Newman, notary 
public ; Rexford L. Holmes, shorthand reporter. 

Prior to the taking of his deposition Hon. Charles A. Sulzer, through his 
counsel, James T. Lloyd, submitted the following: 

Exhibit 1. Notice of contest, dated Washington, D. C, April 10, 1917, signed 
by contestant. 

Exhibit 2. Answer of contestee to notice of contest, dated April 9, 1937. 

Exhibit 3. Reply of contestant to answer of contestee, dated May 12, 1917. 

Exhibit 4. Contestee's answer to contestant's reply, dated May 16, 1917. 

Exhibit 5. Certified copy of the petition or alternative writ of mandamus, 
the answer of John F. Pugh, the answer of J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. 
Davidson, the stipulation, memorandum opinion on demurrer to defendant's 
answer, order sustaining demurrer to answers, letter of J. F. A. Strong and 
Charles E. Davidson, letter from Judge Robert W. Jennings, letter of J. F. A. 
Strong and Charles E. Davidson, motion of plaintiff, order that alternative writ 
of mandamus be made peremptory, and peremptory writ of mandamus in cause 
No. 1593-A, entitled " The Territory of Al:isk:i on the relation of Charles A. Sul- 
zer, and Charles A. Sulzer, relator and plaintiff, r. The Canvassing Board for the 
Territory of Alaska, consisting of J. F. A. Strong, Charles E. Davidson, and 
John F. Pugh, defendants." 

Exhibit 6. Copy of letter dated February 16, 1917, from the governor of 
Alaska to the attorney general of Alaska, asking his opinion on 22 different 
questions. Also answer of the attorney general to the governor of Alaska, in 
reply to the 22 questions asked by the governor. 

Exhibit 7. Certified photographic copy of the original registration book of the 
Choggiung voting precinct, Bristol Bay recording district, third division, Terri- 
tory of Alaska. 

Exhibit 8. Certified photographic copy of the original registration book of the 
Afognak voting precinct, Kodiak recording district, third division, Territory of 
Alaska. 

Exhibit 9. Certified photographic copy of the original registration book of 
the Seldovia voting precinct, Kenal recording district, third division, Territory 
of Alaska. 

Exhibit 10. Telegram from S. B. Mclntyre, captain of the Fourteenth Infan- 
try, addressed to the commanding general, San Francisco, Cal., which reads as 
follows : 

" United States attorney this district is of the opinion, and has so expressed 
in writing, that enlisted men serving in Alaska for over one year are entitled 
to A'ote at coming election. Request instructions at once and interin-etation of 
permanent-domicile paragraph 1860, Revised Statutes United States." 

The telegram is dated Fort Gibbon, Alaska, November 1, 1916; also answer 
to said telegram, dated San Francisco, by way of . Seattle, November 6, 1916, as 
f ollovA''s : 

" Your telegram November 1, re enlisted men voting, presents abstract ques- 
tion. No genei-al decision can be gi^'en. Each case must be decided on merits, 
Exercise extreme caution. 

" Baeette. 

"A true copy. 

" S. B. McIntyke, 

" Captain, Fourteenth Infantry." 

Also copy of memorandum, as follows : 

" Headquakteks, Fort Gibbon, Alaska, 

" Novembei' 6, 1916. 
" Memorandum : 

" Under date of October 17, 1916, the United States attorney of the fourth 
judicial district of Alaska has expressed the opinion that enlisted men are 
entitled to vote at the coming election, provided they are citizens of the United 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 381 

States and have been residents of Alaska for one year and have resided within 
the district for 30 days immediately preceding the date of election. 

" The attention of all concprued is invited to the fact that only actual and 
legal residents of Alaska are entitled to vote ; that a declaration of legal resi- 
dence in Alaska forfeits the legal residence of the voter in his permanent domi- 
cile, as no citizen can have legal residence in more than one State. 

" Enlisted men desiring to vote will see the commanding officer in his office 
before so doing so. 

" S. B. McIntyee, 
" Gapt'zin, Fourteenth Infantry, Commanding. 
"A true copy. 

" S. B. McIntyee, 

" Captain, Fourteenth Infantry.'" 

Exhibit 11. Polling list, Fort Gibbon precinct. 

Exhibit 12. Notice of time and place for taking depositions of witnesses ; also 
proof of service of notice of time and place for taking depositions of witnesses. 

Hon. CHARLES AUGUST SULZER, having first been duly sworn, deposes 
and says : 

I was nominated as a candidate for the office of Delegate to Congress from 
Alaska by the regular convention of the Democratic Party, held in the city of 
Juneau, Alaska, in May, 1916. This convention was duly called and largely 
attended by regularly elected delegates. I was the unanimous choice for can- 
didate for Delegate. 

In making the campaign I visited all parts of Alaska, with the exception of 
the most remote sections of the Territory, Avhich it was impossible to reach in 
the four months' time available. All traveling and personal expenses during 
this trip were paid from my personal funds. 

The contestant states that all the officials of the Territory were in my control 
I deny this categorically. I admit that many officials supported me, but equally 
as many gave their support to my opponent, Mr. Wickersham. The contestant 
represents that all of the commissioners in Alaska were appointees of the 
judges appointed by the national Democratic administration, and that therefore 
all the election machinery of the Territory was in my control, the inference 
sought to be conveyed being that the election machinery was thus used to fur- 
ther the interests of my candidacy. 

I deny that any such condition existed, and declare that in many cases 
throughout Alaska commissioners in office at the election of 1916 were appointed 
to these offices many years previous to the Democratic administration, and 
that they were of a political faith other than my own. 

The contestant endeavors to represent that the precinct of Fort Gibbon, in 
the fourth judicial division, was first created in 1916 for the express purpose of 
having the soldiers residing there vote for me. I deny emphatically a^y such 
action and file herewith and ask to have made a part of the official record a 
certified copy of the poll list and certificate of returns from Fort Gibbon 
voting precinct for the election held Tuesday, November 3, 1914, attested to by 
the secretary of Alaska under his official seal. 

This document shows conclusively that Fort Gibbon has been a duly created 
voting precinct at elections previous to that of 1916, and the returns further 
show that contestant herein received nearly all the votes for Delegate at Fort 
Gibbon in the election of 1914. Further, a comparison of the official returns of 
the elections of 1914 with those of 1916 shows that the change in the vote at 
Fort Gibbon against contestant herein was not confined to Fort Gibbon precinct, 
but that exactly the same reversal obtained in every precinct on the Yukon 
River, and in fact throughout the whole fourth judicial division, for in the 
election of 1914 the contestant herein received 2,048 votes in this division 
against 712 for his nearest opponent, whereas in the election of 1916 the con- 
testant herein failed to carry the division, losing it by 19 votes. Neither the 
Democratic Party in Alaska nor myself had anything to do with establishing 
the Fort Gibbon precinct or the conduct of the election there any more than we 
had in any other precinct of the Territory. 

The voting of soldiers at Fort Gibbon was made in strict accordance with the 
law ; I knew nothing of the rules and regulations for voting them ; all I was 
aware of was that the Territorial law made it possible for American citizens 
claiming Alaska as their residence who had been in the Territory for one year 
and in the judicial division for 30 days prior to the election to cast their votes. 



382 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

I wish to offer in evidence as part of my deposition attested copies of tele- 
grams passing between tlie commanding officer at Fort Gibbon and tlie depart- 
mental headquarters at San Francisco, as well as a memorandum posted on the 
bulletin board at Fort Gibbon on the day of election. 

At the time of the election I was in Anchorage, Alaska, 500 miles from Fort 
Gibbon. After the election 1 immediately returned to my home and devoted 
myself intensively to my business affairs, which had suffered considerably dur- 
ing my long absence. I reside on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, 
about 300 miles from the capital at Juneau. The mails, running once a week, 
furnish the only means of communication with the outside world. I was not 
in touch with the cauvass of the returns of the election and took no part what- 
ever in said canvass. All of my attention during this period was centered in 
my business affairs. 

Arriving at Juneau on March 1 to attend the session of the legislature, in 
which I was one of two senators representing the first judicial division, I was 
apprised that a majority of the canvassing board, to wit, Gov. Strong and 
Secretary Davidson, had concluded to issue a certificate of election to Wicker- 
sham. Messrs. Helleuthal and Winn advised me that on behalf of the Demo- 
cratic party they had represented me during the canvass and had protested 
against the counting of the returns from certain precincts owing to the fact that 
these precincts had made returns that obviously were grossly in violation of 
mandatory provisions of the Australian ballot laws. There were grave reasons 
to believe that some of the returns at least were fraudulent. They stated that 
the questions had been submitted by the canvassing board to the attorney general 
of the Territory asking for his legal opinion, and that the said written opinion, 
given to the board in due course, clearly stated that the precincts in controversy 
had made illegal returns and could not be counted. I was advised that the 
majority of the board refused to follow the opinion of the attorney general. 

After due consideration of the facts it '\\as apparent that should the opinion 
of the attorney general be disregarded and the illegal returns counted, it would 
be a flagrant violation of the Australian ballot law, which had done so much to 
purify the elections of the Territory, and would bring the law into discredit and 
disreiDute and open wide the door for frauds at subsequent elections in the 
Territory. 

It was therefore decided at a conference of Democrats at Juneau tt.at the 
circumstances warranted an appeal to the district court for a writ of man- 
damus against the canvassing board. This action was taken and the court gave 
an opinion upholding the opinion of the attorney general. In due course of 
time the certificate of election was issued to me. I left inunediately after getting 
the certificate in order to be here, if possil)le, at the opening of the special ses- 
sion of Congress. I did not reach hero until the day after Congress had con- 
vened, when I took my seat in the House of Representatives ajid was s^\•orn in 
as the Delegate from Alaska. 

I wish to deny emphatically the charge of contestant herein that the court 
proceeding was " an agreed case, a collusive proceeding." It was alisolutely 
nothing of the kind, but was in every sense a fair and honest and just proceed- 
ing initiated upon my right as a candidate before the canvassing board and as 
a citizen of the Territory of Alaska and instituteii to uphold the sanctity of the 
Australian ballot and in the interests of clean elections, and the law of the 
Territory. 

Contestant herein claims he was given no om^ortunity to be represented before 
the court. The proceedings show he was given every opportunity and invited 
to appear. The proceedings were held in the capital city of Juneau and the 
contestant was in close touch with all the proceedings. The legislature was 
about to convene and many of the contestant's closest friends and strongest 
supporters were present, not only those residing at Juneau, but from other parts 
of the Territory. Mr. John Rustgard, an i\h\e attorney of Juneau, who had 
during a part of the campaign been the campaign manager of the contestant 
and one of his strongest supporters throughout, acted as amicus curijie and had 
presented the case of contestant in the strongest manner possible. 

The opinion of the court was rendered purely upon the facts and the law 
speaks for itself. 

In connection with the certified photographic copies of the registers from 
these voting precincts in the Bristol Bay section. I wish to state tliat tliey are 
offered for the purpose of showing that the registers of elections and the other 
election material was duly received at those precincts. The official l>allots pre- 
pared by the clerk of the court in that division were sent at the same time as 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 383 

these other documents. If they were not received at these precincts, the elec- 
tion judges, under the mandatory provision of the election law, should liave 
accompanied the election returns to the canvassing board with a certificate show- 
ing that they had not been received, and why they had not been received, if 
possible. This certificate failed to accompany such returns and was the reason 
for the opinions of the attorney general and the court in instructing the can- 
vassing board that the returns must be rejected. 

I also wish to call attention to the fact that these photographic copies of 
the registers show that many of the signatures are in the same handwriting, 
and also that numerous crosses after the names of the various voters indicate 
that the voters were illiterate; and the contention is made that many of the 
voters in these precincts were uncivilized Indians who were unqualified to 
exercise the right of suffrage ; and in regard to that the testimony which will 
be taken in these various precincts will more fully elaborate it. 

Mr. Elliott. All this, as I understand it, is to be passed on in the hearings 
anyhow — Mr. Sulzer's statement — and he |imply made the statement of his own 
knowledge and understanding. I do not think I want to ask him any ques- 
tions, because the attorneys will later propound such interrogatories as they 
may deem proper. 

cha.s. a. sxjlzeiv 
United States, 

District of Columbia, ss: 

I, Sebe Newman, notary public within and for the District of Columbia, 
hereby certify that in pursuance of the attached notice to take depositions in 
the contested-election case of James Wickersham v. Charles A. Sulzer, in the 
office of .James T. Lloyd, Room 70S, Woodward Building, Washington, D. C, 
on .July 26, 1917. at 10 o'clock a. m. of that day Charles A. Sulzer appeared, 
was first duly sworn and tfien testified as above set forth, and the said testi- 
mony was reduced to writing and subscribed to by the said Charles A. Sulzer 
in my presence. 

Witness my hand and seal this 26th day of July, 1917. 

[seal,] Sebe Newman, 

Notary Public, D. C. 

My commission expires September 4, 1917. 

letter from governor to attorney general. 

Territory of Alaska, Governor's Office, 

Juneau, February 16, 1911. 
Hon. George B. Grigsby, , 

Chief Counsel, Juneau, Alaska. 
Dear Sir : I am submitting herewith, for your consideration and opinion, 
certain questions that have arisen as a result of the canvass of the election 
returns of the general election held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 
1916, by the Alaska canvassing board, consisting of the governor, the surveyor 
general, and the collector of customs. For your further information, I desire 
to state that at a meeting of the canvassing board this morning it was unani- 
mously decided to submit these questions to you and ask for an opinion thereon 
as soon as you shall find it practicable so to do. 

Questions submitted and upon ivhich an opinion is desired by the canvassing 

hoard. 

1. Where judges of election failed to execute oath. 

2. Where one judge swore the other two, but was not himself sworn. 

3. Where all three judges signed oath form, but no one signed the jurat. 

4. Where all three judges signed oath form, but no one signed the jurat. 

5. Where all three judges signed oath form, and two of them signed the jurat. 

6. Where no registration book was used. 

7. Where registration book was used, but names of voters were written 
therein by member of election board instead of by the voters themselves. 

S. Where registration book was not certified by election board. 

9. Where but one judge signed certificate to registraton book. 

10. Where no register of voters was used in addition to the registration 
book. 

11. Where election board did not make a duplicate return or certificate of the 
election and forward same to the clerk of the district court. 



384 WIOKERSHAINI VS. SULZEH^^ 

12. Where (as in the second division) no onths of election officers were with 
the returns sent to tlie governor's office, but clerk of court claims to have fur- 
nished oath forms to all boards and that their oaths are on file in his office. 

13. Where election board did not sign the certificate of result in back of 
register or registration book. 

14. Where election board did not fill in the certificate of result nor sign 
same. 

15. Where only record of result is the tally sheets sent in by the board, only 
one of which is certified. ' 

16. Where unofficial ballots were used and no explanation made by election 
board as to why they were used. 

17. Where sample ballots were used (furnished by the clerk ©f the court) 
instead of the official ballots, and no explanation given. 

18. Where " worker's ballots " were used instead of the official ballots, and 
no explanation made by election board. 

19. Where " worker's ballots " 'wgre used instead of official ballots (the 
ballots used bearing the name of a political party), and explanation made by 
election board as to their use. 

20. Where election returns are in. but canvassing board has not received 
certified copy of commission's order and notice of election. 

21. Is chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915. valid? 

22. In what respects does chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, change the pro- 
cedure of elections in the matter of a duplicate register of voters, duplicate 
return by election boards, certification of returns, etc., as that procedure was 
outlined in the act providing for the election of a Delegate to Congress? 

Yours, very truly, 

J. F. A. Steong, 
Governor, Chait%an of Canvassing Board. 

Juneau, Alaska, Febriiary 19, 1911. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor and Chairman of Canvassing Board, 

Juneau, Alaska. 
Sir : I have your communication of February 16, 1917, submitting to me 
certain questions upon Avhich an opinion is desired by the canvassing board now 
engaged in canvassing the returns of the general election held in the Territory 
of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

Among the questions submitted are the following, which I deem of sufficient 
importance to make the subject of a separate opinion. 

16. Where unofficial ballots were used and no explanation mad3 by election 
board as to why they were used. 

17. Where sample ballots were used (furnished by the clerk of the court) 
instead of the official ballots, and no explanation given. 

18. Where "worker's ballots" were used instead of the official ballots, andi 
no explanation made by election board. 

These questions may be considered together, as there is no difference between 
the irregularities in each, there being no distinction between a case where 
worker's ballots or sample ballots were used and one where any other form of 
unofficial ballots were used. 

The case of Boyd v. Mills (53 Kans., 594), makes a distinction where sample 
ballots are used,' but in view of the mandatory provisions of the statutes 
hereinafter discussed, I am of the opinion that such distinction does not exist 
under the laws of Alaska. 

The returns from the precincts where the above irregularities occur, consist 
of the certificates of the result of the election, the register of voters, and the 
ballots cast. These returns were propei'ly sealed up and mailed to the governor 
of Alaska. It appears, however, on an examination of these returns by the 
canvassing board, that the ballots used were not the official ballots provided for 
by the act of the Territorial legislature of April 27, 1915, chapter 25, Laws of 
Alaska, 1915, but were prepared by the voters, or some person for them, and 
failed in practically all essentials to conform to the style of ballot prescribed 
by the act. In other words, in the precincts in question there was a total disre- 
gard of the proAisions of the legislative act. The Territorial act above referred 
to provides in substance that the clerks of the district court in each judicial 
division shall prepare the ballots for use in their respective divisions in all 
election. Then follow certain directions as to the style of the ballot, the color 



■^vICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 385 

and dimensions of the paper to be used, tlie provisions for blank spaces for the 
insertion of names of candidates not printed upon tlie ballots, and other pro- 
visions common to the Austrialiau ballot law. 

Section 21 of this Territorial act provides as follows : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received, the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall, in this event, certify to the facts 
w^hich prevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany 
and be made a part of the election returns." 

All authorities are agreed that the controlling purpose of the Australian 
ballot law is to secure a secret ballot, to the end that the voter may fully 
and freely vote for his choice of candidates uninfluenced by threats or intimi- 
dation, and that corruption of his vote may be prevented. There is a great 
confusion of authorities as to whether such laws are to be construed as manda- 
tory in all respects, or merely directory, some courts going to the extreme in 
holding the ballot legal, though not in statutory form, being inclined in the 
absence of proof of fraud, to subordinate the requirements of the statutes to 
the ascertaining of the intention of the voter and the will of the majority. This 
view of the law is concisely expressed in the case of Horsefall et al. v. School 
District (143 Mo. App., 545), as follows: 

" We think it may now be said to be the established rule in this State, as it 
is generally in other jurisdictions, that when a statute expressly declares any 
particular act to be essential to the validity of an election, then the act must 
be performed in the manner provided, or the election will be void. Also, if 
the statute provides specifically that a ballot not in a prescribed form shall not 
be counted, then the provision is mandatory, and the courts will enforce it ; 
but if the statute merely provides that certain things shall be done, and does not 
prescribe what results shall follow if those things are not done, then the pro- 
viion is directory merely, and the final test as to the legality of either the 
election or the ballot is whether or not the voters have been given an oppor- 
tunity to express, and have fairly expressed, their Avill." 

The foregoing rule has been applied in many cases where the ballots provided 
by those whose duty it was to prepare them did not strictly conform to the 
statutory provisions. In some of the cases the ballots were only slightly 
irregular and there is a hopeless confusion of authorities as to what departui'es 
from the statutory requirements are, and what are not, fatal to the validity of 
the ballots. 

I have been unable to find any case, however, holding the votes legal where 
the use of official ballots was entirely dispensed with. 

The effect of applying the rule announced in Horsefall v. School District to 
the case before this board, where no official ballots were used at all, would be 
to establish a precedent encouraging an absolute disregard by both voters and 
officials of the provisions of the law as to the form of the ballot. 

The Territorial act, as before stated, directs that the clerk of the district 
court shall prepare the ballots for use in all elections, and it prescribes the 
form of the ballot. It does not in express terms provide that none but the 
official ballots shall be counted. It does, however, so provide by implication, 
for section 21 of the act, quoted above, declares when and under what circum- 
stances other than the official ballots may be used. By the common rule of 
construction, the well-known maxim. " expressio unius est exclusio alterius," 
applies here, and the fact that the legislature has expressly declared that under 
certain circumstances other than official ballots may be used clearly shows an 
intention that they shall not be used except under the circumstances detailed. 
Even conceding the Horsefall case to express the true rule, our statute would 
nevertheless be construed as mandatory. 

The Horsefall case, however, is not supported by the best authority. Con- 
sidering the purpose of the Australian ballot law, it is plain that its object 
would be defeated if the directions as to the preparation and form of the ballot 
were not regarded as mandatory. The employment of express words is not 
always necessary to give a law a mandatory character. 

The following from the case of Board v. Dill, 110 Pacific, 1107, a case involv- 
ing questions similar to those here discussed, clearly expresses the true rule. 
After reciting the facts, the court states : 

" By this it will be seen that we are again confronted with the eternal moot 
of whether an election statute is mandatory or directory. The perpetuity and 
virtue of popular government can only be secured and maintained by providing 
13289—17 25 



386 WIGKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 

for the independence of the electors upon whose consent and will it exists. 
Widespread charges of improper influences, bribery, and corruption committed 
on the occasion- of elections in many of the States of the Union bringing in their 
wake defeat of the popular will and success to the corrupt schemes of design- 
ing men, brought about the election reform Ivuowu as the Australian ballot 
system. Elections prior to it were held by an open-ticket system, under which 
secrecy was almost if not quite impossible, and dependent or corrupt voters 
were equally at the mercy and under the control of those who would use them 
for corrupt ends. 

" The court of appeals of New York, in the case of People v. Board of County 
Canvassers, 129 N. Y., 395, 29 N. E., 32V, L. R. A., 624, says : 

" ' We know that the principal mischief which the statute was intended to 
suppress was the bribery of voters at elections, which had become an intoler- 
able evil, and this was to be accomplished by so framing the law as to enable, 
if not compel, the voter to exercise his privilege in absolute secrecy. ' 

" The supreme court of Michigan in the case of Deti-oit v. Rush, 82 Mich., 
582, 46 N. W., 951, 10 L. R. A., 171, says : 

" ' The secrecy of the ballot is the great safeguard to the purity of elections. 
The vote by ballot implies secrecy. This secrecy should not be confined to the 
time of depositing the ballot. It should accompany the voter through all the 
steps provided for the preparation of his ballot. Only in this way can he be 
freed from all intimidation, improper influences, reproach, and animadversion. 
When all knowledge of how he voted is the voter's own secret, unless he chooses 
to divulge it, he is fully protected, and a free and honest vote will very uni- 
formly be the result.' 

" The supreme court of appeals of Virginia in the case of Pearson v. Bruns- 
wick County, 91 Va. 322, 21 S. E. 483, says : 

" ' The object is to relieve the voter from every influence inimical to a free 
and deliberate exercise of the right of suffrage, to free him from all solicitation 
and annoyance, and to leave him a perfectly free agent to vote as to him seems 
best. These provisions seem to be not only reasonable, but well adapted to 
secure the end in view, so far as the voter is concerned who is able to prepare 
his own ballot. He goes to the judges, he receives an official ballot printed 
by aiathority of the State, upon which is found every office to be filled and 
every candidate for that office, whose name has been filed in accordance with 
the requirement of the law, and he retires to a booth where he is curtained 
off and secluded from all the world. No eye can see him and no ear can hear 
him ; no evil agency can approach him ; and, with these environments, he pre- 
pares his ballot, folds and delivers it to the judge, who, in his presence, places 
it in the ballot box. * * * The general scheme of the law is to secure the 
independence of the voter by secluding him within an isolated booth, sur- 
rounded by a neutral zone, within which none may enter save those charged 
with conducting the election.' 

" Thus it is seen that the general scheme of the system is to secure the inde- 
pendence of the voter by requiring him to cast his vote in secret. 

" Secrecy is the fundamental underlying primary essential of the system, and 
is the one element and condition which, paramount to all others, can not be 
. destroved without destroying the reform intended and reestablishing the evils 
it was designed to correct. Statutes which make, even incidentally, for its 
preservation and inviolability are seldom directory, and without exception, 
where the language will admit of it, are held to be mandatory." 

In Tuntland v. Noble, 138 N. W., 292, the court disapproves of the opinion of 
the Horsefall case, and condenses what seems to be the weight of authority, 
as follows : 

" What seems to us to be the true rule, is laid down in the following from the 
opinion of the court in the case of Perry v. Hackney, 90 N. W., 485 : 

" ' The statute under consideration is then not in terms mandatory, but it is 
well settled that the employment of express words is not ahya^ys necessary to 
give it that character; where the aim and purpose of the lawmaking power 
would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular man- 
ner did not imply an inhibition to do it in any other, no doubt can be main- 
tained as to the mandatory character of the statute.' (23 Am. & Eng. Enc. of 
Law, pp. 453, 454, and cases cited.) 

" The proper test for distinguishing mandatory from directory provisions ot 
the election laws is well stated by the Supreme Court of Indiana, in Parvin v. 
Weinberg, 30 N. E., 790, as follows : 

" ' If a statute expressly declares any particular act to be essential to the 
validity of an election, or that its omission shall render the election void, the 



WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER. 387 

courts whose duty it is to enforce the law as they find it must so hold, whether 
the particular act in question goes to the merits or affects the result of the 
election or not ; for such a statute is mandatory and the court can not enter 
into the question of its policy ; on the other hand, if a statute simply provides 
that certain things shall be done within a particular time or in a particular 
manner, and does not declare that their performance shall be essential to 
the validity of an election, they will be regarded as mandatory if they affect 
the merits of the election, and as directory only if they do not affect its merits.' 

" We also approve the following from the case of Jones v. State ex rel. 
Wilson 55 N. E., 229. ,- 

" 'All provisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought 
before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose, but after election all 
should be held directory only, in support of the results, unless of a character 
to affect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote, or to 
the ascertainment of the result, or unless the provisions affect an essential 
element of the election, or unless it is expressly declared by the statute that 
the particular act is essential to the validity of an election.' " 

Applying the law as enunciated in the opinion quoted, many irregularities 
in an election proceeding including deviations from the form of official ballots, 
may be disregarded as not affecting the merits of an election and not affecting 
an essential element of the election, being matters of form rather than of 
substance. The courts go a great way to sustain the validity of elections, the 
conduct of which is in many respects far from compliance with the regulations 
imposed by statute. 

But when we consider the object of the Australian ballot law, it is at once 
apparent that a total disregard of its provisions would entirely defeat the 
purpose of the lawmakers. Slight departures from those directions prescribed 
probably would not be vital, but to entirely dispense with them, would cer- 
tainly " both affect the merits and affect an essential element of the election," 
that is, the element of secrecy, which is the primary object sought to be at- 
taind by the law. 

" This being true, a court will not investigate to ascertain whether or not the 
disregarding of this ' essential element,' going as it does to ' the merits of the 
election,' did in fact in a given case affect the apparent result of the election." 
(Tuntland v. Noble, 138 N. W., 292.) 

In other words, it is enough that its necessary tendency would be to affect the 
merits of the election. 

The following also expresses the general rule : 

" The statutes usually prescribe the size and form of the ballots and the kind 
of paper on which they are to be printed and prohibit any marks, figures, or 
devices upon which one can be distinguished from another. These statutes, 
being designed to preserve the secrecy of the ballot and to prevent fraud, intimi- 
dation, and bribery, will generally be considered mandatory, and this will be so 
in all cases where the statutes provide that a ballot varying from the require- 
ments of the law shall not be counted. But if this provision is lacking, while 
it is the duty of the election officers to refuse to receive the ballots if the 
deviations from the law are manifest, if they have been received they should 
not be rejected if the variations are but trifling. It is necessarily impossible to 
lay down any general rule by which to determine what is a material variation 
from the required form, within the meaning of said statutes, and each case 
must be determined from its own facts and circumstances." (Am. & Eng. Enc, 
2d Ed., vol. 10, p. 726.) 

This board is not confronted with a case where there is a slight deviation 
from the regulations prescribed by law, but where there is a total disregard 
thereof. 

My conclusion, therefore, is that the Alaska Territorial act is mandatory in 
so far as it relates to the manner of preparation and form of the ballot. It 
follows, therefore, that ballots cast not prepared by the proper officials and sub- 
stantially conforming to the statute are illegal. In the precincts in question 
there was a total failure to comply with the provisions of the statute, and the 
ballots cast in these precincts therefore are invalid and can not lie counted 
unless some other provision of the statute authorizes their being accepted as 
valid. It therefore remains to consider the application of section 21 of the 
territorial act to the question submitted. Again quoting section 21 : 

" That in any precinct where the election has been legally called and no 
official ballots have been received the voters are permitted to write or print 
their ballots, but the judges of election shall in this event certify to the fact 



388 WICKERSHAM VS. SULZEE. 

which isrevented the use of the official ballots, which certificate must accom- 
pany and be made a part of the election returns." 

The ballots included with the returns from the precincts in question are not, 
and do not purport to be, the official ballots, but were prepared by the voters 
themselves or by some person for them. 

This by section 21 is allowed to I»e done " vrhers- no official ballots have been 
received." 

Section 21 is a proviso creating an exception from the operation of the statute. 
Such provisos must be strictly construed. This is the general rule. (36 Cyc, 
1162, and cases cited.) 

Construing the election act as mandatory, the law of Alaska, which is to be 
applied to the case under consideration, is in effect as follows : 

" None but official ballots shall be voted except in precincts where no official 
ballots have been received." 

Section 21 further provides that in the event no official ballots have been 
received the judges of election shall certify to the facts wiiich prevent the use 
of the official ballots, which certificate must accompany and be made a part of 
the election returns. The purpose of the latter provision is apparent. Without 
the certificate of the judges the canvassing board would have no means of 
ascertaining the reason the official ballots were not used. It has been suggested 
that the very fact that no official ballots whatever were used in the precincts in 
question would give rise to the i3resumption that none were received. There is 
no such legal presumption. Very possibly this might have been the case, pos- 
sibly it might not have been. To assume the existence of such a presumption 
would entirely nullify the act and dispense with the necessity of using official 
ballots at all. The truth is, there is no presumption of fact one way or the 
other. The nonofficial ballot is prima facie illegal and can not be counted 
except iTuder certain circumstaiic'es, to wit, where no official ballots have been 
received. On the face of the returns from the precincts in question the ballots 
cast are all illegal, because not oflicial ballots. 

The canvassing luiard has been furnished with no evidence at all of the 
existence of any legal reason why official ballots were not used. The law pro- 
vides but one method of furnishing evidence of such reason, and that is by the 
certificate of the judges which " must accompany and be made a part of the 
returns." This board has no such certificate before it, nor any other evidence 
of the reason for the use of nonofficial ballots. 

The word " must " is ordinarily to be construed as imperative and manda- 
tory, and always to be so construed unless the intention of the legislature is 
apparently to the contrary. (36 Cyc, 1160.) 

No reason can be conceived for construing it otherwise in the above statute. 
The word " must " used in the statute necessarily implies certain consequences 
if the statute is not complied with. The implication in this case is, that unless 
a certain certificate accompanies and is made a part of the returns, where 
nonofficial bailots are used, they must be rejected. Whether or not the facts 
were, that no official ballots were received in the precincts involved, is a ques- 
tion which can not be inquired into by this canvassing board, as the law pre- 
scribes what shall be evidence of this fact, so far as the canvassing board is 
concerned, and there being no evidence on the subject before the board, the 
ballots must be considered illegal and the vote rejected. Whether or not the 
vote might be counted in a contest before the proper tribunal, in case legal 
evidence was received of the existence of circumstances which the statute says 
legalizes the use of nonofficial ballots, is a question with which the canvassing 
board is not concerned. Undoubtedly, if the returns were submitted in their 
present form, they would be rejected by any tribunal having jurisdiction to try 
a contest. 

This situation must not be confused with cases where the election judges 
failed to send all the documents, such as ballots, tally sheets, register of voters, 
oaths of judges, necessary affidavits, etc., which constitute election returns. 
Mere omissions of this kind, by the great weight of authority, do not neces- 
sarily vitiate the returns. The present situation is diiferent. Here is no 
failure to send any certain document which is by law a part of the returns. 
In this case there is no reason to assume the existence of the certificate lack- 
ing. There is no reason to assume the existence of the reasons which would 
make the certificate a necessary part of the returns. Assuming the existence 
of the reasons and of the certificate, still the statute requiring the latter to 
accompany the returns would have to be construed as mandatory. But we can 
assume neither. We have returns complete in all respects, showing the vote 
prima facia illegal and void on account of the use of the illegal ballots. 



WICKESSHAM VS. SULZEE, 389 

Ex parte Riggs, 29 S. E., 645, is similar to the case before this hoard. In the 
Riggs case the canvassing board rejected certain ballots not conforming to the 
statute. The court said : 

" The lawmaking power having declared that voting shall be by ballot, and 
having prescribed the form of such ballots, and, what is more important, hav- 
ing in nnmistakable terms forbidden a ballot which is not in the prescribed 
form from being counted, we can not hold that the board of State canvassers 
committed any error in obeying this express mandate of the body instrusted 
with the power to make the laws. We have neither the power nor the dispo- 
sition to inquire into the wisdom or policy of such a law, for ' ita lex scripta 
est ' is sufficient for us and precludes further inquiry." 

To be sure, in the Riggs ease the South Carolina statute provided expressly 
that no ballot of any description other than that provided by law should be 
counted, but we have already reached the conclusion that notwithstanding the 
absence of this express provision our statute is none the less mandatory, and, 
once conceded to be mandatory, it inhibits the use of nonofficial ballots just as 
effectively as if it in express terms stated that they could not be counted. The 
Riggs case, abo^'e quoted, is therefore exactly in point. 

Section 403 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska provides as follows : 

"The governor, surveyor general, and the collector of customs for Alaska 
shall constitute a canvassing board for the Territory of Alaska to canvass and 
compile in writing the votes specified in the certificates of election returned to 
the governor from all the several election precincts as aforesaid." 

The question has been raised as to the duty of the board to consider any- 
thing else in making their canvass than the election certificates referred to in 
the above section. 

Section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, provides what shall constitute the 
election returns. The ballots are not, as in many States, separately sealed up, 
but are inclosed in the same envelope with the accompanying documents. All 
these documents taken together constitute the election returns. The board 
meets for the purpose of canvassing and compiling the vote specified in th^ cer- 
tificates. To " canvass " has been defined by Webster to mean " to examine 
thoroughly, to search or scrutinize." The Standard Dictionary defines the 
word " to examine searchingly, go over in detail, scrutinize, sift, as to canvass 
the vote in an election ; an official scrutiny, as a canvass of votes at an election." 

A canvass of an election includes not only the counting of the votes by the 
inspectors, but the record of the count by the poll clerks upon the tally sheet, 
so that the tallv sheet is a substantial part of a canvass. (In re Stewart, 48 
N. Y. Supp.. 957.) 

A canvass is l)ut a count of the ballots, a convenient and expeditious method 
of determining the choice of the people as disclosed by the ballots. As between 
the ballots themselves and a canvass of the ballots, the ballots are controlling. 
(Hudson V. Solomon, 19 Kans., 177.) 

Canvass as applying to an election would seem to impose an obligation be- 
yond that of merely counting the ballots and comparing the statements of the 
managers. Canvassing implies searching, scrutinA^, investigation, examination. 
(State V. Nerland, 7 S. C, 246.) 

Canvass as applied to election returns does not necessarily mean to count 
the ballots. To canvass the returns and to canvass the vote are frequently 
rised synonymously. (People v. Town of Sausalito, 39 Pac, 937.) 

It may be conceded that the almost universal rule is that a canvassing board 
can not go behind the returns to look for illegalities or fraud in the conduct of 
the election, nor should it consider trifling defects in the returns or slight 
omissions of the returning officers. The duties of canvassing boards are purelj'' 
ministerial ; they hve to consider only what appears on the face of the returns. 
Even in case of doubt as to the legality or illegality of certain ballots, they are 
not to go behind the certificate of the judges of election. 

But when the returns show on their face that all of the votes in a given 
precinct are beyond question illegal, the ballots having been prepared with 
total disregard of the provisions of the election law, they are bound to reject 
them, AA'here the certificate is lacking which would legalize such ballots. Sec- 
tion 402 of the Compiled Laws, designating what shall constitute returns, must 
be construed together with section 21, chapter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska, 
1915, which latter section amends section 402 to the extent of making the cer- 
tificate referred to therein an essential part of the returns. 

Ex parte Riggs, 29 S. E., 645, cited above, is authority for the canvassing 
board to reject returns where the ballots are illegal. It was also held in 
Mississippi that where the ballots which Avere required to accompany the re- 



390 WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 

turns shoM^ed upon their face that they were illegal the canvassers might 
reject them in the count. (Oglesby r. Sigman, 58 Miss., 502.) 

This case seems to be exactly in point, as under the laws of Alaska the bal- 
lots must accompany the return and are not separately sealed. 

In this case the returns from the precincts where the irregularities are such 
as described in questions 16, 17, and 18, show prima facia an absolute total 
disregard of the Territorial act in the use of the illegal ballots not explained by 
any evidence of any kind, and you are advised that they much be rejected. 

The burden should be upon him who relies upon such votes to furnish the 
evidence establishing their validity before the proper tribunal. In the mean- 
time it is the duty of the canvassing board to give effect to the will of he 
majoriy who have complied with the law by delivery of certificates of election 
to the candidates receiving a majority of legal votes. 
Respectfully, 

Geoege B. Grigsby, Territorial Counsel. 

REPLY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GOVERNOR. 

Juneau, Alaska, February 19, 1917. 
Hon. J. F. A. Strong, 

Governor and Chairman of Canvassing Board, Juneau, Alaska. 
Sir: I have your communication of February 16, 1917, submitting to me 
for my opinion certain questions arising out of irregulaiities in the retui*ns 
of the general election held in the Territory of Alaska on November 7, 1916. 

Three of the questions prodounded by you I concider of sufficient importance 
to make the subject of a separate opinion. I herewith submit my conclusions 
with respect to the other questions submitted by your board. 

1. Where judges of election failed to execute oath. 

2. Where one judge s^A'ore the other two, but was not himself swprn. 
.3. Where all three judges signed oath form, and one signed the jurat. 

4. Where all three judges signed the oath form, but no one signed the jurat. 

5. Where all three judges signed oath form, and two of them signed the 
jurat. 

The failure of election judges to execute oath is an immaterial irregularity 
in the conduct of the election which does not affacet the result, the courts 
unanimously holding that notwithstanding the failure of these officials to take 
oath and otherwise qualify, nevertheless if they perform the functions of judges 
their acts are leaal as the acts of de facto officers. (Whipley v. McKune, 12 
Cal., 362; Sprague v. Norway, 31 Cal., 173; Sanders i;. Leeks, 142 Mo., 255; 
Hevfron r. Mahoney. 9 Mont., 497 ; Stimson v. Sweeney, 17 Nev., 309 ; People v. 
Cook, 59 Am. Dec, 451.) 

6. Where no registration book was used. 

7. Where registration book was used but names of voters were written therein 
by member of election board instead of by the voters themselves. 

8. Where registration book was not certified by election board. 

9. Where but one judge signed certificate to registration book. 

I assume that this refers to the registration book prescribed by chapter 2.5 
of the Session Laws of Alaska, 1915. If so, my opinion is that the failure to 
use the registration book was not an irregularity vital to the legality of the 
election. The registration provided for by the act of the legislature, chapter 25, 
Session Laws of Alaska, 1915, is not a registration prior to the election and not 
one that affects the qualifications of voters, but simply a method provided for 
the conduct of the election and to prevent illegal voting by making any false 
statements to the person offering to vote, with regard to his qualifications, 
punishable by fine or imprisonment. That part of the statute referring to 
registration is not mandatory in form, and. as it does not relate to matters that 
are essential elements or affect the merits of the election, it is probably to be 
considered directory only. (Bowers v. Smith. 17 S. W., 762.) 

Furthermore, the provisions of chapter 25 relating to registration are not 
strictly within the scope of the act as expressed in its title. This, however, is 
the subject of another question. 

10. Where no register of voters was used in addition to the registration book. 
By section 397 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska, the two judges of election 

who act as clerks shall each keep a correct duplicate register and enter therein 
the names of the voters and the fact that they have voted, etc. 

Section 22 of chapter 25 of the Session Laws of Alaska, 1915, provides that 
the clerk of the court shall furnish each polling place with a book, known as the 
registration book, in which each voter shall sign his name before voting. The 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZER. 391 

provisions of section 22 of chapter 25 do not do away witli the necessity for 
the register of voters required by the provisions of section 397 of the Compiled 
Laws of Alaslia ; but in case of a failure of the election clerks to keep such 
register the registration book required by the legislative act, if containing the 
names of the voters, would be held sufficient compliance with section 397, and 
probably be held equivalent to said register required by that act. The fact that 
the same is not in duplicate is an immaterial regularity and would not affect the 
result of the election. 

I therefore advise you that in cases where the only register of voters is in 
the registration book provided for by the legislative act the returns, if regular 
in other respects, should be canvassed and the votes counted. 

11. Where election board did not make a duplicate return of certificate of the 
election and forward same to the clerk of the district court. 

You are advised that this omission is immaterial, except in case of loss of 
the returns mailed direct to the governor, the evident purpose of this provision 
being to prevent the disfranchising of voters on account of loss of the returns. 

12. Where (as in the second division) no oaths of election officers were with 
the returns sent to the governor's office, but clerk of court claims to have fur- 
nished oath forms to all boards, and that their oaths are on file in his office. 

This is an immaterial irregularity, as explained with reference to the first 
five questions. 

13. Where election board did not sign the certificate of result in back of 
register or registration book. 

14. Where election board did not fill in the certificate of result nor sign 
same. ^ 

Section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, provides that the election board at 
each polling place shall, after canvassing the votes, make out in duplicate a 
certificate of the result of said election, specifying the number of votes in words 
and figures cast for- each candidate, etc. 

This section does not provide that this certificate of the result must be in 
the back of the register or registration book or be in any book. There must, 
however, be some certificate substantially conforming to section 402 or there 
would be no authentication of the returns or declaration of the result of the 
election. If such certificate does not accompany the returns, they can not be 
counted, unless a substitute has been received from the clerk of the court, or 
unless such defect is cured by the certificate being received before the canvass- 
ing board adjourn. If received at any time before the canvassing board 
adjourn, it may be accepted and the returns canvassed, or if received with the 
returns but not signed, and the judges appear and offer to sign the same, they 
should be permitted to do so, this being simply a matter of the authenticity of 
the- returns and a statement of the result. 

There is no distinction between questions 13 and 14, as in both cases there 
was a failure of the board to sign the certificate, consequently there was no 
certificate. The authorities generally hold that this certificate is indispensable. 
(People r. Nordheim, 99 111.. .553: Perry v. Whittaker, 71 N. C. 475; Simon v. 
Durham, 10 Oreg., 52; Opinions of Justices, 68 Maine, 582; Lawrence County v. 
Schmaulhauses, 123 111.. 321.) 

15. Where only record of result is the tally sheets sent in by the fcoard, only 
one of which is certified. 

If properly certified, so as to substantially comply with the requirements of 
section 402, Compiled Laws of Alaska, and clearly constituting a declaration of 
the result and authentication of the returns, I have no doubt it would be 
sufficient even though not in duplicate. The test is whether the returns are 
sufficiently authenticated so that the canvassing board can determine that they 
are genuine returns. If the return lacks these requisites, it should either be 
corrected if an opportunity is offered, or if not corrected, should be rejected. 

16. 17, and 18. These question are made the subject of another opinion. 

19. Where "worker's ballots" were used instead of official ballots (the 
ballots used bearing the name of a political party), and explanation made by 
election board as to their use. 

Where the explanation made by the election board is in compliance with 
section 21 of chapter 25, Session Laws of iVlaska, 1915, the ballots should be 
counted. The fact that the ballots bore the name of a political party is no 
reason for rejecting them. W^here the law permits the voter to use other than 
official ballots, they do not have to be in the form prescribed by the legislative 
act, but are sufficient, if they substantially comply with the congressional act, 
and under the congressional act distinguishing marks or party designation 
would not be a material irregularity. There is no reason whatever for reject- 



392 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



in.a- the ballots on account of the party desijiiiation, and no authority can be 
cited in support of their rejection. 

20. Wliere election retunis are in, Imt canvassing- board has not received 
certified copy of commissioner's order and notice of election. 

Thfe certified copy of commissioner's order and notice of election is not a part 
of the return, and the failure of the commissioner to forward the same to the 
governor of Alaska, as required by section 396 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska, 
does not prevent the canvassing of the returns if the canvassing board is 
satisfied from other information that the returns are from regularly established 
precincts. 

21. Is chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, valid? 

Chapter 25. 1915 Session Laws, is A'alid in so far as it provides for a form 
of official ballot and matters germane to such sub.iect. In other respects it is of 
at least doubtful validity for the reason that the organic act provides that no 
law shall embrace more than one sub.1ect, which shall be expressed in its title. 
The title to chapter 25 is " An act to provide official ballots for elections in the 
Territory of Alaska." 

22. In what respects does chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915, change the 
procedure of elections in the matter of a duplicate register of voters, duplicate 
return by election boards, certification of returns, etc., as that procedure was 
outlined in the net providing for the election of a Delegate to Congress? 

Chapter 25, Session Laws of 1915. does not change the procedure of elections 
in the matter of a duplicate register of voters, duplicate returns by election 
boards, certification of return, as that procedure was outlined in the act pro- 
viding for the election of a Delegate to Congress, except tJi'^t by section 21 of 
chapter 25, a certain additional certificate is under certain circumstances made 
an essential part of the returns. This is the certificate required where official 
ballots are not received in the precinct. Chapter 25 is valid as to all provisions 
prescribing a form of official ballot, and is valid as to the provisions of section 
21 thereof. 

Respectfully, George B. Gkigsby, 

Territorial Counsel. 

I certify thnt the foregoing are true and correct copies of a letter from Gov. 
J. F. A. Strong, governor of Alaska, to myself, dated February 16. 1917, request- 
ing an opinion on certain election matters referred to therein and of my opinion 
on certain of said questions in response to said letter. 

Geoege B. Gkigsby. 
Exhibit 7. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, third rlirision, -sss; 

I, the undersigned clerk of tlie district court for the Territory of Alaska, third 
division, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true, and correct photo- 
graphic copy of the original registration book of the Chogiung voting precinct, 
Bristol Bay recording district, third division. Territory of Alaska, as the same 
appears on file and of record in my office. 

In testiipony whereof. I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Valdez, Alaska, this 27th day of April, 1917. 

[seal.] Arthur Lang, Clerk. 

By Chas. a. Hand. Deputy. 



No. of 




No. of 




persons 
register- 
ing. 


Names of persons registered. 


persons 
register- 
ing. 


Names of persons registered. 


1 


Chas. Mulkeit. 


15 


Ivan (his x mark) Ungak. 


2 


Nick Patterson. 


16 


Balanka (his x mark) Larson. 


.3 


Adolf Osterhaus. 


17 


Mrs. H. J. Paulsen. 


4 


Lars D. Nielsen. 


18 


Mrs. Katherine R. Nash. 


5 


Louis Hansen. 


19 


Ballasora (his x mark) Gland. 


6 


August Hoseth. 


20 


Ivan (his x mark) Cheronkok. 


7 


Molly Osterhaus. 


21 


Brokojsi (his x mark) Iwkak, 


8 


Preston H. Nash. 


22 


Simion (his x mark) Anmuksok. 


9 


H. J. Polsev. 


23 


Wassilli (his x mark) Cooktune. 


10 


W. A. Borland. 


24 


Ludo\ick Egeland. 


11 


Theodore Hersey. 


25 


Simion (his x mark") Tretiakoff. 


12 


Aneska Hansen. 


2G 


Wassilli (his x mark) Vetok. 


13 


Otto A. Larson. 


27 


George Lindstrom. 


14 


Constantino Tretiakoff. 


28 


Delia Lindstrom. 



WICKEKSHAM VS. SULZEE. 



393 



Exhibit S. f 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, third division, ss: 
I, the undersignecl clerk of the district court for tlie Territory of Alaska, third 
division, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true, and correct photo- 
graphic copy of the original registration book of the Afognak voting precinct, 
Kodiak recording district, third division, Territory of Alaska, as the same 
appears on file and of record in my office. 

In testimony whereof, I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Valdez, Alaska, this 27th day of April, 1917. 

[SEAL.] Aethub Lang, Clerk. 

By Chas. a. Hand, Deimty. 



No. of 




No. of 




persons 
register- 


Names of persons registered. 


persons 
register- 


Names of persons registered. 


ing. 




ing. 




1 


Ivan Derenoff (X). 


32 


Natalia SimeonofE. 


2 


Ernest Strickler. 


33 


Irene Nelson. 


3 


Simeon Berestoff (X). 


34 


Nicholai Boskofsky. 


4 


Ivan Alhoon (X). 


35 


Nastacia Kiligmen (X). 


5 


Afoney Malutin. 


36 


Paul Chechenofl. 


6 


Xenophont Gregoriofl (X). 


37 


Wm. Chechenofl. 


7 


John Taoshawk. 


38 


Alexis Chechenofl. 


8 


Logan Chanum (X). 


39 


John J. Folstad. 


9 


Kodion Malutin (X). 


40 


Charles W. Pajoman. 


10 


Maltey Agick. (X). 


41 


0. C. Badun. 


11 


Peter CheekenofC. 


42 


Louis Berg. 


12 


Temofey Nay a (X). 


43 


Arthur Marzan. 


13 


Julius Farsman. 


44 


Simeon Malutin. 


14 


Martin Lauren. 


45 


Wasele Apolon (X). 


15 


Peter Kauan. 


46 


E. Petellin. 


16 


Ivan Greg ori off (X). 


47 


Alfi-ed Nelson. 


17 


Gregory Yakonak (X). 


48 


Alexander Simeonofl. 


18 


Wasele Eshuvavak (Xj. 


49 


Mary Petellin. 


19 


Henry Wander. 


50 


Willie Leahy Abbert. 


20 


Chas. B. Gunderson. 


5] 


Matrona Pajoman. 


21 


Michael Sussman. 


52 


Paul Nekraesofl (X). 


22 


John Yakonak. 


53 


Senophont Mahetin. 


23 


W. E. Baumann. 


54 


Horace Samuel Abbert. 


24 


Peter Chickenoff, jr. 


55 


Alexandra Nekrasofl (X). 


25 


Alexander Lukin (X). 


56 


Andrew Shunagan (X). 


26 


John P. Johanson. 


57 


Michael Boskofsky (X). 


27 


Tichon Sheratin. 


58 


Nick Anderson. 


28 


Alexey Knagin, sr. (X) 


59 


Theodore Gregoriofl. 


29 


John OrdofE. 


60 


Stephen Gregoriefl. 


30 


John Naumoff. 


61 


Nicholai Shangin (X). 


31 


Elia Knagin. 


62 


Sergay Sharotin. 



Exhibit 9. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, Third Division, ss: ^ 

I, the undersigned clerk of the district court for the Territory of Alaska, 
third division, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true, and correct 
photographic copy of the original registration book of the Seldovia voting pre- 
cinct, Kenai recording district, third division. Territory of Alaska, as the same 
appears on file and of record in my office. 

In testimony whereof I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 
said court at Valdez, Alaska, this 27th day of April, 1917. 

[seal.] Arthur Lang, Clerk. 

By Chas. A. Hand, Deputy. 



394 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



No. of 


• 


No. of 




persons 
register- 


Names of persons registered. 


persons 
register- 


Names of persons registered. 


ing. 




ing. 




1 


Henry Logan. 


44 


John Aabenak. 


2 


Henry Ohlson. 


45 


Matilda A. Grieve. 


3 


Chaes Carlson. 


46 


Zakar (X) Chonkna. 


4 


James Phgbrom. 


47 


Fred (X) Jager. 


5 


Wm. Rohde. 


48 


Nick (X) Sakoloff. 


6 


Wm. (X) Lowell. 


49 


Jack Holland. 


7 


Christian Petersen. 


50 


Saverian (X) JakalofE. 


8 


S. Stofler. 


51 


W. A. Keller. 


9 


Axel Michelson. 


52 


Geo. P. Griffiths. 


10 


Andy Johnson. 


53 


Fred Sanke. 


11 


Mike Dolchok . 


54 


James Linder. 


12 


Semea Marlowe. 


55 


Tollak Ollestad. 


13 


W. J. McKeon. 


56 


Mrs. Mary Cleghorn. 


14 


Steve E. Sorokorikoff. 


57 


Mrs. Hattie Johnson. 


15 


G. M. Chambers. 


58 


Mrs. Sallie Bowen. 


16 


T. O. Perry. 


59 


Milo Hulburt. 


17 


Geo. D. Slayback. 


60 


Thos. Repetta. 


18 


John A. Nelson. 


61 


Mrs. Bogart. 


19 


Edward Jensen. 


62 


Mrs, Ritchie. 


20 


F. J. Cameron. 


63 


Chris. Spillum. 
U. S. Ritchie. 


21 


Peter C. Garlich. 


64 


22 


Olga Holmstram. 


65 


Edw. 0. Dwyer. 


23 


P. F. C. Bellman. 


66 


Albert Fillmore. 


24 


Antone Dolchak. 


67 


F. D. Decker. 


25 


N. I. Grieve. 


68 


Minnie Cameron. 


26 


E. R. Bogart. 


69 


Elizabeth Herbert. 


27 


R. B. Markle. 


70 


Edward Carlson. 


28 


M. J. Doyle. 


71 


G. W. Mitchell. 


29 


Juanita Anderson. 


72 


G. B. Meyers. 


30 


Thos. Moore. 


73 


Lizzie (X) Black. 


31 


Die Skaar. 


74 


Irene Jacobson. 


32 


Albert Peterson. 


75 


Agnes (X) Barnes. 


33 


Samuel (X) Mercuroff. 


76 


Annie Christiansen. 


34 


H. M. Blake. 


77 


J. Christiansen. 


35 


Gregory (X) Fry. 


78 


Frank Brown. 


36 


Frederick Nelson. 


79 


Reuben Barnes. 


37 


Constantin (X) Lucko. 


80 


George R. King. 


38 


Gregory (X) Kalango. 


81 


Mrs. George R. (X) King. 


39 


J. A. Hart. 


82 


Jack Tansy. 


40 


R. N. McFadden. 


83 


Edw. Husby. 


41 


Albert Osness. 


84 


Barbara Husby. 


42 


E. I. Gruundsen. 


85 


Lizzie Ward. 


43 


Edward Hegner. 







Exhibit 10. 
united states signal coeps. 



Send the following message : 



Commanding General, 

"San Francisco, Cal. 



" Fort Gibbon, Alaska, 

" Novem<her 1, 1916. 



" United States attorney, this district, is of the opinion, and has so expressed 
in writing, that enlisted men serving in Alaska for one year are entitled to 
vote at coming election. Request instructions at once and interpretation of 
permanent domicile, paragraph 1860, Revised Statutes United States. 

" McIntyre. 
" A true copy. 

" S. B. McIntyre, 

"Captain, Fourteenth Infantry." 

signal corps, united states army — telegram. 
Received at San Francisco, 2, via Seattle, Wash., Nov. 6-16. 
C. O. Gibbon : 

Your telegram, November 1, re enlisted men voting, presents abstract ques- 
tion ; no general decision can be given; each case must be decided on merits; 
exercise extreme caution. 

Barbette. 
8.42 a. m. 
A true copy. 

S. B. McIntyre, 

Captain, Fourteenth Infantry. 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEK. 



395 



Memorandum ; 



Headquaetees, 
FoET Gibbon, Alaska, 

November 6, 1916. 



Under date of October 17, 1916, the United States attorney of the fourth 
judicial district of Alaska, has expressed the opinion that enlisted men are 
entitled to vote at the coming election provided they are citizens of the United 
States and have been residents of Alaska for one year and have resided within 
the district for 30 days immediately preceding the date of election. 

The attention of all concerned is invited to the fact that only actual and 
legal residents of Alaska are entitled to vote ; that a declaration of legal resi- 
dence in Alaska forfeits the legal residence of the voter in his permanent doini- 
cile, as no citizen can have legal residence in more than one State. 

Enlisted men desiring to vote will see the commanding officer in his office 
before so doing. 

S. B. McIntyee, 
Captain, Fourteenth Infantry, Commanding. 
A true copy. 

S. B. McIntyee, 

Captain, Fourteenth Infantrf/. 

EXHIRIT 11. 
Polling list, Fort Gibbon precinct. 



No. 


Name. 


No. 


Name. 


1 


Jack Welch. 


15 


Michel Hegarty. 




2 


W. H. Bergman. 


16 


Lillian Wickins. 


— 


3 


R. J. Starke. 


17 


John Wells. 




4 


J. E.B.Cartwright. 


18 


Miss F. G. Langdon. 




5 


Ed. Kehoe. 


19 


Mrs. Iva Edwards. 




6 


J. A. Fisher. 


20 


Mrs. E. J. Bergman. 
Miss Margaret Harper. 




7 


Frank Kehoe 


21 




8 


W. A. McLoud. 


22 


Lou Snepp. 




9 


Thomas McRae 


23 


Ejiute Helenius. 




10 


Alford Paulsen. 


24 


Niels Rasmussen. 




11 


Patrick Hegan. 


25 


George D. Paterson. 




12 


Gus Thomblads. 


26 


Asa (?) Swartz. 




13 


W. J. easy. 


27 


H. M. Swartz. 




14 


Philip Mayhan. 


28 


G. H. Bergman. 





CERTIFICATE OE RETURNS FROM FORT GIBBON VOTING PRECINCT. 

We, the undersigned duly appointed and qualified members of the election 
board for the Fort Gibbon precinct, Territory of Alaska, fourth division, do 
hereby certify that we, have counted and canvassed the legal votes cast in said 
precinct at the election held on Tuesday, November 3, 1914, between the hours 
of 8 o'clock a. m. and 7 o'clock p. m., for the purpose of electing one Delegate 
to Congress from the Territory of Alaska and one senator and four representa- 
tives from the fourth judicial division, Territory of Alaska, to the legislative 
assembly of said Territory, and we do now certify that at said election in said 
precinct votes were cast and counted as follows : 



For James Wickersham, twentv-two (22) votes. 
For C. E. Bunnell, three (3) votes. 
For John M. Brooks, two (2) votes. 

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals this 
3d day of November, 1914. 

(Signed) W. H. Bergman, [seal.] 

Jndge of Election. 
(Signed) J. E. B. Caet weight, [seal,] 

Jndge of Election. 
(Signed) R. J. Starke, [seal.] 

Judge of Election. 



396 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZER. 



of voters, Alaska Territorial election, fourth division, totvn of Eagle, 
Nov. 3, 19U. 



No. 


Name. 


No. 


Name. 


1 


John B. Powers. 


29 


R. W. Coffin. 


2 


U. G. Myers. 


30 


C. A. Thompson. 


3 


Dan W. McQuade. 


31 


Charles Smith. 


4 


P. J. Hillard. 


32 


Mrs. H. Broad. 


5 


J. .T. Hillard. 


33 


Chas. F. Yost. 


6 


Geo. B. Burgess. 


34 


Robt. Beggs. 


7 


H. C. Simon. 


35 


John Olson. 


8 


W. H. Russel. 


36 


Axel Johnson. 


9 


John Ott. 


37 


John Johnson. 


10 


James Tweed. 


38 


Mrs. John W. Seheele. 


11 


Frank A. Jones. 


39 


John W. Seheele. 


12 


George Mattock. 


40 


E. C.Curtis. 


13 


Charles Martin. 


41 


Robert E. Steel. 


14 


John Logan. 


42 


Arthur Frolish. 


15 


Clarence Dudney. 


43 


James Dubis. 


16 


Ervia Mather. 


44 


Osker Emerson. 


17 


Frank Jones. 


45 


Mrs. L. S. C. Jones. 


18 


Ingvald Hansen. 


46 


Mrs. Robert E. Steel. 


19 


Hermann Kummer. 


47 


Mrs. Harry Ross. 


20 


G. H. Rundle. 


48 


Charles G." Fisher. 


21 


F. C. Omo. 


49 


William Ziller. 


22 


Charles Ott. 


50 


Mrs. Anna Malm. 


23 


George Gardener. 


51 


Miss Lula Graves. 


24 


William Rooney. 


52 


Mrs. C. A. Thompson. 


25 


E. D. Madison. 


53 


Robt. Murray. 


26 


J. J. Samis. 


54 


Peter Limdia. 


27 


Martin Garrity. 


55 


Harry Ross. 


28 


E. M. Webster. 


56 


August Fritsch. 



CEETIFICATE OF EETUENS FEOM TOWN OF EAGLE VOTING PRECINCT. 

We, the undersigned duly appointed and qualified members of the election 
board for the town of Eagle precinct, Territory of Alaska, fourth division, do 
hereby certify that we have counted and canvassed the legal votes cast in said 
precinct at the election held on Tuesday, November 3, 1914, between the hours 
of 8 o'clock a. m. and 7 o'clock p. m., for the purpose of electing one Delegate 
to Congress from the Territory of Alaska and one senator and four representa- 
tives from the fourth judicial division, Territory of Alaska, to the legislative 
assembly of said Territory, and we do now certify that at said election in said 
precinct votes were cast and counted as follows : 



DELEGATE. 

For C. E. Bunnell, nine (9) votes. 
For John M. Brooks, twenty-two (22) votes. 
For James Wicliersham, twenty-four (24) votes. 

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands" and affixed our seals 
this 3d day of November, 1914. 

(Signed) P. J. Hilliaed, [seal.] 

Judge of Election. 

(Signed) H. C. Simon, [seal.] 

Judge of Elation. 

(Signed) Dan W. McQuade, [seal.] 

Judge of Election. 

teeeitoey of alaska, governor's office, juneau. 

United States of America, 

Territory of Alaska, ss: 
I, Charles E. Davidson, acting governor of the Territory of Alaska (the Hon. 
J. F. A. Strong, governor, being at this time in the State of Washington), 
hereby certify that the foregoing document, consisting of four pages, constitutes 
a full and complete copy of the polling lists of the Fort Gibbon and the Eagle 
voting precincts. Territory of Alaska, fourth judicial division, and of so much 
of the certificates of leturns from said precincts as relates to the votes cast 
for the caddidates for Delegate. I further certify that these documents have 
been copied from the original election returns of the precincts above named, and 



WICKEESHAM VS. SULZEE. 397 

M-liich are now ou file in the governor's office at Juneau, Alaska, as a part of 
the official election returns covering the general election held in the Territory 
of Alaska on Tuesday, November 3, 1914. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 
Territory of Alaska to be hereunto affixed this 2d day of June, 1917. 

[seal.] Chaeles E. Davidson. 

By the acting governor : 
Charles E. Davidson, 

Secretary of Alaska. ■ 

Exhibit 12. 

peooe of service of notice of time and place fok taking depositions of 

avitnesses. 
State of Washington, 

County of King, ss: 
A Windt, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says that he is a 
citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, living at 
Seattle, in King County, in said State, above the age of 21 years ; that he 
received the attached notice of the taking of depositions in the above-entitled 
cause on July 17, 1917 ; and that on July 18, 1917, he duly served the same upon 
James Wickersham, contestant above named, by delivering to and leaving with 
said James Wickersham, at Seattle, Wash., a true and correct copy of the 
attached notice. 

A. WiNDT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of July, A. D. 1917. 
[seal.] R. M. Jones, 

Notary Puhlic in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 

NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE FOE TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES. 

To the Hon. James Wickeesham, contestant : 

You are hereby notified that the testimony of Charles A. Sulzer, contestee 
in the above-entitled cause, will be taken before Sebe Newman, notary public 
for the District of Columbia, in the office of James T. Lloyd, Room 708. Wood- 
ward Building, Washington, D. C, beginning at 10 o'clock a. m. of Thursday, 
July 26, 1917, at which time said contestee will introduce as testimony in the 
above-entitled cause a full, true, and correct copy of all pleadings and papers 
filed in the district court of the Territory of Alaska, first division, in the case 
of Sulzer v. The Canvassing Board, together with the opinion, final judgment, 
and writ of mandamus issued in said case, all such records being duly certified 
to as a full, true, and correct copy by the clerk of said court under tlie seal of 
said court ; and such other evidence as may be proper and pertinent and within 
the issues of the above-entitled cause; said contestee reserving the right to 
introduce other and further testimony upon other and further notice. 

Dated at Seattle, Wash., July 17, 1911. 

Maurice D. Leehey, 
Robert M. Jones, 
Attorneys for Contestee. 



INDEX. 

Page. 

Notice of contest 3-26 

Answer to notice of contest 26-36 

Contestant's reply and answer to cross petition in contest 36-38 

Contestee's answer to contestant's reply 38-39 

Appearances for contestant : 

Cobb. John H 300 

Elliott, Henry W 3S0 

Erwin, Guy B 166, 167 

Lomen, G. J 342 

Rustgard, John 226, 243, 260, 272, 275 

Wickersham, James 40, 200, 324 

Appearances for contestee: 

Clark, John A 166 

Donohue. T. J 238,243,260,272,275 

Clegg, Cecil H 166 

Hellenthal, J. A 226 

Hellenthal & Hellenthal 300 

Jones, Robert M 200 

Lloyd, James T 40, 380 

McDonald, R. S . 172 

O'Neill, Hugh 342 

Sellers, Harvey 824 

Sulzer, Charles A 40, 380 

Winn, John R 226 

Acknowledgment of service of complaint and petition for writ of man- 
damus 121 

Alternative writ of mandamus 86, 127 

Answer of John P. Pugh, member of canvassing board, to alternative 

writ of mandamus and injunction order issued 90 

Answer of J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson, members of can- 

. vassing board, to alternative writ of mandamus 91-92 

Certification of election of Charles A. Sulzer by canvassing board 122 

Communications from Hon. George B. Grigsby, Territorial counsel to 

Hon. J. F. A. Strong, governor and chairman of canvassing board 78-86 

Copy of letter of Charles A. Sulzer to John A. Clark 169 

Joint answer and supplemental answer of J. F. A. Strong and Charles 
E. Davidson, members of canvassing board, to alternative writ of 

mandamus 129-132 

Letter from canvassing board inclosing certificate of election to Charles 

A. Sulzer 123 

Letter from Judge Jennings 132-134 

Letter from J. F. A. Strong and Charles E. Davidson to Judge Jennings- 140 

Letter from Henry T. Ray, notary public, to W. G. Cassels 165 

Letter from James Wickersham to Henry T. Ray 168 

Letter from R. F. Roth, United States attorney, to Robert Loghry 170-171 

Letter from governor to attorney general and reply thereto 383-392 

List of irregularities in election returns as found by a recheck made by 

representative of Hellenthal & Hellenthal 74-78 

Memorandum opinion on demurrer to defendant's answer 98-113 

Minutes of meetings of canvassing board, Juneau, Alaska, January, 

1917 52-73 

399 



400 INDEX. 

Page. 

Notary's certificate 39, 164, 168, 197, 218, 232, 242, 259, 271, 274. 297, 323, 383 

Notary's subpoeua 168, 171-172, 199-200, 299 

Notice to talje depositions 198, 199, 225, 233, 298, 340-341, 374-379 

Objections of Mr. Sulzer to taldng of depositions of witnesses at Fair- 
banks, Alaslva 169-170 

Officers before whom depositions were taiien : 

Chase, D. B 342 

Hayes, Frank J 238, 243, 260, 272, 275 

Hartman, Dwight D 200 

McClure. D. F 172 

Mnll. D. B 40 

Newman, Sebe 880 

Ray. Henry T ^ 164, 172 

Winn. G. C 300 

Winston, Will H 324 

Peremptory writ of mandamns 117-120, 134-139 

Petition for a writ of mandamus 87-90 

Protest against counting votes of certain precincts in different judicial 

divisions of Alaska, and reply thereto 114-117 

Separate answer of John F. Pugh, member of canvassing board, to alter- 
native writ of mandamus 128 

Stipulation 128, 242, 260, 270, 273, 274, 295 

Supplemental brief by amicus curlge 93-98 

Testimony for contestant 40-233 

Testimony for contestee 233-397 

Witnesses for contestant: 

Allen, Daniel B 19.5-196 

Ballon, W. B 205-207 

Barton. Joseph 187-188 

Bauer, Steven ISO 

Bridgewater, Sidney 184-185 

Clark, Henry F 186 

Coleman, James G 166-167 

Davis, John H 189-190 

Dohert.v, Daniel 182-183 

Douglas, Cleveland 181 

Dreibelbis, George 207-208 

Drury, Joseph 194 

Feder. Charles E 174 

Fitzwilliams, Basil 191-192 

Galvin, Thomas F 179-180 

Grabouski, Joseph 187 

Haas, Albert J 173-174 

Hatfield, Nathan C 191- 

Hefrdn, Clarence 175-176 

Hewitt, Silas 193-194 

Huffman. Frederick L 178 

Jones, Melvin 178-179 

Jones, Orvel 192-193 

Lathrop, James M 200-205 

Le Gier, Lester B • 184 

Loghry, Robert 166 

McGonigle, Ralph J 174-175 

McNeeley, John D 183 

Pennington, George W 1^90 

Phillips, Hugh T 194-195 

Selk, Louis G 1'77 

Shannon, W. J 188-189 

Sherlock, John O 196 

Sullivan, Michael 181-182 

Toland, Edward J 197 

Waggoner, David 226-231 

Wickersham, James 40-51, 208-218 

Wilson. Ralph O 176-177 

Wood, William E 185-186 



INDEX. 401 

Witnesses for contestee: Page. 

Adams, E. E 356 

Adams. G. A 349-355 

Agick. Mafrev 273 

Alhoon, Ivan 266-267 

Bell, J. W 318-323 

Boweu. Russell 348-.S49 

Bromlev, Rev. E. E 332-334 

Calhoun. C. D 336-338 

Davidson, Charles E 316-317 

Dennnei't, George 338-339 

Derenoft". Ivan__ 267-269 

Dolchak, Anton 284-285 

Doyle. M. J ^ 275-284 

Erickson. Louis 3-56-360 

Forsman. Julius 260-261 

Foxy, Gresorv — — 287-289 

Hayes. W. R 356 

Hibbs. C. E , 324-331 

Hibbs, Mrs. C. E 331-332 

Jakalofe. Savarian 286-287 

James. Robert 355-356 

Kalungi. Gregori 292-294 

Kashevarof, Feather N. P 247-2.50 

King, Cecil 251-256 

Lang. Arthur : 238-242 

Larsen. Fred 359-362 

Larsen, Martin 2.56-2.59 

Martin. Frank 362-363 

Mercurolf, Sam 289-290 

Pajoman, Charles 270 

Peratovich. R. J 33.5-.3.36 

Petellin. E 261-266 

Sakaloff. Nick 294-295 

Hhorthill. W. W 300-316,318 

Spencer. Herbert 342-.34S 

Strickler. Ernest 243-247 

Sulzer. Charles August , 381-383 

Talenak. .John 291-292 

Taushwak. .John 272-27-3 

Yakanak. Gregori 269-270 

EXHIBITS. 

Exhibit No. 1. May 16, 1917. — Notice of taking deposition of James 

Wickershani. contestant 51 

Exhibit No. 2. May 16. 1917 52 

Exhibit A 92 

Exhibit No. 3. May 16, 1917.— Certificate and petition 123-126 

Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5. May 16, 1917. — Certificates of judges of elec- 
tion to election returns 140-142 

Exhibit No. 6. May 16, 1917 142-14S 

Exhibit No. 7. May 16. 1917. — Duplicate certificate of result of gen- 
eral election for Delegate, etc 143-144 

Exhibit No. 8. May 16. 1917.— Certificate of judges of election to 

election returns 144-145 

Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. May 16, 1917.— Certificates of clerks to election 
renirns 145-148 

Exhibit No. 11. May 16. 1917. — Certified copy of election register and 

list of persons who signed challenge oath forms 148-150 

Exhibit No. 12. May 16, 1917 150-1.52 

Exhibit No. 13. :May 16, 1917.— Letter from Gov. Strong to Hon. James 

Wickersham 152 

Exhibit No. 14. May 16. 1917. — Letter from James Wickersham to 

U. G. Meyers 152 

13289—17 26 



402 INDEX. 

Exhibit No. 15. May 16, 1917. — Letter from U. G. Myers to Hon. James Pag©. 

Wickersham 1.52 

Exhiljit No. 16. May 16, 1917. — Certitication of records on file in Adju- 
tant General's Office 152-1.53 

Exhibit No. 17. May 16, 1917.— Letter from Gov. Strong to Hon. .James 

Wickersham 1.53 

Exhibits Nos. IS and 19. May 16, 1917.— Letters to Gov. Strouc 1.53 

Exhibit No. 20. May 16, 1917.— Letter from Gov. Strong to Hon. Jame.s 

Wickersham 154 

Exhibit No. 21. May 16, 1917.— Letter from G. A. Adams to Gov. Strong 

relative to using special ballots at general election 154-155 

Exhibit No. 22. May 16, 1917.— Letter from Postmaster General Burle- 
son relating to mail service for Nushagak, Dillingham, and other 
■ points on Bristol Bay, Alaska, during summer, fall, and winter of 

1916 1.56 

Exhibit No. 23. May 16, 1917. — Official returns of election of Delegate 

from Alaska, etc 156-163 

Contestant's Exhibit A 218-221 

Contestant's Exhibit B 221 

Contestant's Exhibit C 222 

Contestant's Exhibits D, E, F, G, and H 223 

Contestant's Exhibit I 224 

Contestant's Exhibits J and K 225 

Exhibit L. — Registration list for election for Delegate from Alaska 231-232 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 1. — Instructions to judges of election 234-236 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 2.— Official ballot (omitted in printing) 236 

Conte.stee's Exhibit No. 3 236 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 4. — Election register and tally book (omitted 

in printing) 237 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 5 of Arthur Long's deposition 237-238 

Contestee's Exhibits Nos. 1-6 of M. J. Doyle's depositions 295-297 

Contestant's Exhibit A. — -An act to define and establish political status 

of certain native Indians v^^ithin the Territory of Alaska 339 

Contestee's Exhibit A. — Duplicate register of general election, Nov. 7, 

1916, for Delegate, etc 364 

Contestee's Exhibit B. — Instructions to judges of election and sections 

of lavp^ governing elections 365-368 

Contestee's Exhibit C— An act to define and establish political status 

of certain Indians within the Territory of Alaska 368-369 

Contestee's Exhibit D. — An act to provide official ballots for elections 

in the Territory of Alaska 369-374 

Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. — Photographic copies of original registration books 

of Chogiung, Afognak, and Seldovia voting precincts 392-394 

Exhibit 10.— Messages sent by United States Signal Corps 394-395 

Exhibit 11. — Polling list, Fort Gibbon precinct, and register of voters, 

town of Eagle, Nov. 3, 1914 395-396 

E?:hibit 12. — Proof of service of notice of time and place for taking 

depositions of witnesses 397 

o 



